2018-10-25

Statements By Members
Dixie Presbyterian ChurchMr. Peter Fonseca (Mississauga East—Cooksville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Dixie Presbyterian Church, the oldest church in Peel Region. On June 3, I attended the congregation's worship under the leadership of the minister, Rev. Karen Pozios, in celebration of its 140th anniversary. 
The church's first service was held on June 16, 1878. The congregation met in the old Dixie chapel, the little stone building on the corner of Cawthra Road and Dundas Street. 
Initially, the congregation served a predominantly rural community. Today, it lies in the midst of a bustling intersection within the city of Mississauga. For 140 years, the congregation has been an active member of our community, with outreach work directed at community members of all ages. They have been aiding the vulnerable, providing spiritual guidance and organizing community picnics for more than 100 years.
I wish the Dixie Presbyterian congregation another 140 years of success, as this organization is the embodiment of the community's spirit.
Old Fort LandslideMr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in my riding, residents of Old Fort have had their lives upended with a landslide that took out the power lines and the only road leading in and out of that area. The power just came back this week, and a temporary road has been made to provide some access, but much more needs to be done.
A GoFundMe fundraiser has also been started to help those who are in financial need. I have been blown away by the number of people who have come forward, willing to volunteer their time to help, free of charge. Special thanks today go to Jeff Garrison, Kristi Pimm, Rui from D. Bauer Mechanical, Northern Metallic Sales, Kevin at Bailey Helicopters, Adam at Moose FM, Matt at Alaska Highway News, Tony and Sara Warriner and the Evangel Downtown Community Church, David Ergang, and riverboaters Jason Linley, Dave Turchansky, Dan Toews, Ty Wheat, Alfred Loewen, Darwin Pimm, Rick Walters and many others.
The countless others who are helping at the PRRD EOC, those who are volunteering and those who volunteered to help, I cannot thank them enough. I want the residents of Old Fort to know that we care about them and we are here for them.
Don Valley East VolunteersMs. Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to two long-term residents of Don Valley East.
Don Fernandes was renowned for his community service and for being a champion of social justice. Soon after moving to Canada, he volunteered many hours to help those less fortunate. He was deeply devoted to his wife Sybil, son Keith, daughter Sharon and her husband Jamie. Don passed away in March 2018 at the age of 71.
Paul Seelig was very active in his community and was known for his deep thinking about all issues. Paul was a passionate volunteer for issues that he cared about most: fairness in society and compassion for fellow Canadians. Paul leaves behind his wife Elizabeth and his sister Janet, as well as two children. Paul passed away in June 2018 at the age of 66.
They will be sadly missed in our community.
HousingMs. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians cannot wait, and the members of my riding of North Island—Powell River cannot wait, for a home. 
Service providers tell stories of homeless people and those at risk of homelessness. They tell of families looking for a home to call their own, and seniors at risk of eviction or living in hotels. Single people are living four to a home in bachelor suites, and families are worried that they may lose their children because they cannot find an appropriate home. 
Women are fleeing from violence, with or without children. There are businesses that cannot attract people to work for them because the new employees cannot find a place to live. There are wait-lists for affordable housing that are too long to ever catch up. There is a lack of supportive housing for people who need a foundation to build on, and municipalities are working as hard as they can with the little they have. Too many across this country of Canada cannot wait for a home any longer.
I request that the government open more funds through the national housing strategy. Just 10% of funding before the next election is not enough. This is an emergency and needs to be treated as such.
“World War Women” ExhibitionMr. Jean-Claude Poissant (La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this week, I had the opportunity to open an exhibition called “World War Women”.
The exhibition, developed by the Canadian War Museum here in Ottawa, is on display at the Exporail Museum in Saint-Constant until January 6, 2019. It features the stories of women who made significant contributions to the war effort by supporting wounded soldiers and their families, both in Canada and abroad, and by manufacturing military equipment here at home.
I also want to acknowledge the tremendous amount of work done by Amella Zalewski, Kathleen McGrath, Molly Lamb Bobak and Edith Anderson Monture. Their contributions through volunteer organizations have helped women expand their horizons and play a vital role in the labour market.
With Remembrance Day just around the corner, I would be remiss if I did not also recognize the contributions of our veterans, the men and women who put their own lives in danger to defend this great country of ours.
Saskatchewan Youth LeadersMrs. Kelly Block (Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand here today to congratulate several of my riding's truly outstanding leaders. Earlier this week, 13 grade five students from Vanscoy, Saskatchewan, learned that their hard work to make their world a better place was being recognized with a trip to WE Day in Winnipeg. The civic engagement of these girls is inspiring, and I wish them a wonderful trip to Manitoba later this month.
I would also like to express my appreciation to WestJet for making this trip possible, and for giving these remarkable students the opportunity to gather with other young Canadians who are working hard to bring about positive change, both at home and around the world. 
50th Anniversary of the Saint-Basile-le-Grand Women's OrganizationMr. Michel Picard (Montarville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, next Friday, the Cercle de fermières de Saint-Basile-le-Grand will celebrate its 50th anniversary. This women's organization will celebrate 50 years of work improving the living conditions of women and families and promoting our cultural and artisanal heritage.
This organization enables the women of Saint-Basile-le-Grand and the surrounding area to share knowledge and expertise in weaving, knitting, embroidery and sewing, and it gives them the opportunity to participate in provincial fibre art competitions. Since the next generation is a priority for this organization, it even offers a craft program for young people in our community.
Altruistic by nature, the members of the Cercle des fermières make clothes for hospitals and shelters to bring a little comfort into the lives of those who need it most.
I have had the pleasure of meeting the members of this organization on several occasions and each time I am amazed by their dedication to our community.
Beverly CowieMs. Kim Rudd (Northumberland—Peterborough South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge the life and passing of an unsung community hero. Beverly Cowie was a member of the Anishinabe from the community of Hiawatha First Nation, a proud member of the Canadian Armed Forces and a military police officer. 
Bev's career took her to the centre of many key national and international events, from providing security for the 1976 Olympics to Hong Kong in 1978 and helping bring Vietnamese refugees to Canada, to her time as a Middle East peacekeeper and to search and rescue missions in northern Quebec. After a distinguished 17-year career in our armed forces, Bev went on to graduate from both Trent and Brock universities, beginning the second phase of her life as a community advocate and volunteer.
What may be most remarkable about her life is that she did it all while being a single mother and role model to her two children, Chad and Richelle. Bev was an example of someone we as Canadians can be extremely proud of.
Firearms LegislationMr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, dust off your decoys and don your camo. Fall is here and hunters throughout my riding are celebrating the arrival of hunting season. Northern Alberta is a hunter's paradise, teeming with ducks, geese, deer and moose. This is a time of camaraderie outdoors, a time to pass on our traditions to our children and a time to put meat in the freezer. 
Hunters are law-abiding and conscientious firearms owners. They are not criminals. Bill C-71, if it becomes law, will make these people put their names on the Liberals' gun registry. Their registry targets hunters, not gang members. We need to shoot down this ineffective bill and put our sights on the real criminals: the people who commit crimes. 
I am a hunter, my friends and relatives are hunters, and the first nations in my riding are also hunters. We shoot game to feed our families. The government is going after the wrong people. We are not the criminals; we are hunters. As Uncle Si says, “That's what I'm talking about, Jack.”
Oxi DayMs. Emmanuella Lambropoulos (Saint-Laurent, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on October 28, Hellenic communities across Canada and around the world will come together to celebrate Oxi Day.
On the night of October 28, 1940, the then prime minister of Greece, Ioannis Metaxas, was given an ultimatum by Benito Mussolini: give Italy free passage through Greece and occupation rights to strategic Greek sites, or go to war with Axis powers. Metaxas curtly replied, “Then it is war”. 
While this propelled Greece into war, the Hellenic population considered Metaxas's response an act of bravery. The Greeks held the Germans back for six weeks, playing a pivotal role in the outcome of that war.
As Sir Winston Churchill said, “Hence, we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks.”
This Sunday I am looking forward to seeing members of the Hellenic community of the greater Montreal area to honour the heroes of World War II.
[Member spoke in Greek]
Forces AVENIR GalaMr. David Lametti (LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Forces AVENIR gala was held earlier this year to recognize and promote student engagement. A young woman from Verdun, Marie-Philippe Gill, earned high praise winning the Avenir trophy for outstanding university student. 
An engineering student at École de technologie supérieure in a male-dominated field of study, Marie-Philippe has set out to promote gender equality in the world.
She has been involved with the club Les INGénieuses, encouraging the integration of women in engineering, and is a massive social media influencer through her Girl Knows Tech blog, which is partly how I got to know her.
I personally want to congratulate Marie-Philippe for her success in the world of technology. Her story is a source of inspiration for many young girls in Canada and beyond.
She rocks.
Carbon PricingMr. Larry Miller (Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's carbon tax is a classic example of giving with one hand and taking away with the other. With one hand, the Prime Minister is claiming that Canadians will be receiving generous rebates. Meanwhile, the other hand will pickpocket Canadians and deliver a sucker punch to the economy, particularly in rural areas. Only Liberal logic could ever argue that a tax will result in Canadians receiving more money. If the Prime Minister is feeling so generous, why is he taxing Canadians in the first place? The best place for hard-earned money is in the pockets of those who have earned it. 
The collection of carbon tax dollars will come at a huge cost while being administered by more and more bureaucracy. I will never understand how the Liberal Party is unable to grasp this concept. Bigger government means more spending.
The Prime Minister and the Liberal government need to stop bribing Canadians with their own money, and he needs to keep his hands out of our pockets.
Election in Saint-Boniface—Saint-VitalMr. Dan Vandal (Saint Boniface—Saint Vital, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg held its municipal and school board elections yesterday.
I want to congratulate Brian Bowman on his re-election for a second term as mayor of the city of Winnipeg. Congratulations also to all new and returning city councillors.
I especially want to congratulate those elected in my riding of Saint-Boniface—Saint-Vital, namely Brian Mayes in Saint-Vital, Matthieu Allard in Saint-Boniface, Markus Chambers in St. Norbert-Seine River, and Shawn Nason in Transcona.
I look forward to working collaboratively with the mayor and all of city council to improve Winnipeg's infrastructure, build new housing, support public and active transportation, and help develop strategies to partner with Winnipeg's growing urban indigenous population.
I also want to congratulate all the school board trustees who were elected to the Commission scolaire franco-manitobaine and the Louis Riel School Division.
We thank all the candidates for presenting their vision for the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba.
HousingMs. Tracey Ramsey (Essex, NDP): Mr. Speaker, our country is suffering from a lack of housing, and rural communities, likes ours in Essex, are paying the price of extreme inaction by governments to address this basic human right. Safe and affordable housing is one of the most important factors affecting our health and well-being.
I want to share the words of Joyce Zuk, executive director of Family Services Windsor-Essex. She said that the homelessness crisis that we see across Essex County should surprise no one, since it has been more than 20 years since we have had an investment in affordable housing. It will take years for our community to catch up and build enough affordable housing units. In the meantime, we need to also focus on those whose housing is precarious, those who are one paycheque away from losing their housing or who are living in housing that is consuming more than 30% of their income. 
This is a call to action. 
Shamefully, the Liberals' housing strategy is asking people to just wait and see until after the next election.
A right to housing goes beyond a roof over our heads. For people in Essex, we cannot wait. We need action now.
Carbon PricingMr. Colin Carrie (Oshawa, CPC): Mr. Speaker, this week the Prime Minister announced that he will be forcing Canadians living in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick to pay his carbon tax. 
In Oshawa, people commute as far away as Toronto every working day, relying on their personal vehicles to get to work on time. A round trip from Oshawa to Toronto is approximately 122 kilometres. This will cost commuters driving their cars approximately $12 per day. Over the course of a working year, that works out to approximately $3,150 paid for gasoline. With an additional 11¢ per litre, that expense will rise to over $3,500. That means that if prices remain the same over the course of a year, the Liberal tax grab will cost the average Oshawa commuter an additional $350 in that year, and gas prices are likely to increase that cost.
With a payout of the Liberal cash grab sitting at a lowly $12.50 a month, Canadians are left paying more than they will receive back from the Liberal government's election gimmick.
The NetherlandsHon. Mark Eyking (Sydney—Victoria, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is a special day for us, as we witnessed the first official address to our Canadian Parliament by a Dutch Prime Minister, the hon. Mark Rutte. 
As a Canadian of Dutch heritage, I want to highlight the importance of Canada's friendship with the Netherlands. In 1945, during the liberation of the Netherlands, more than 7,600 Canadians died and were buried on Dutch soil. Following the liberation of Holland, my parents immigrated to Canada, along with 160,000 others. Today there are more than one million Canadians of Dutch descent living in Canada.
Many Canadians may not realize that not only do we have a rich history and a large Dutch community, but trade between Canada and the Netherlands has more than tripled over the past 10 years, and it will continue to grow with the ratification of CETA.
I encourage all my hon. colleagues and all Canadians to learn more about the rich history of our two countries, both economically and culturally. May we always remain allies and friends.

Oral Questions
Carbon PricingHon. Pierre Poilievre (Carleton, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal high-tax hypocrisy is back. We all remember when the finance minister brought in massive new tax increases on small businesses but exempted the Prime Minister's multi-million dollar trust fund inheritance and his own billion dollar family business from any increases. We all remember when they raised taxes on the middle class by $800 a family but collected less from the wealthiest 1%. 
Why is it with the carbon tax, it is once again more high-tax hypocrisy from the Liberal government?
Hon. Catherine McKenna (Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to stand up in this House and say that polluting will no longer be free. We know there is a cost to pollution. We are seeing extreme weather events across this country, from forest fires in British Columbia to droughts and floods across the Prairies to people literally dying of extreme heat. We need to take action on climate change, and we are going to do it in a way that makes sense. A family of four in Ontario will receive $307 back for climate action expenses. That is more than they will pay. We have a plan to grow the economy. We have a plan to tackle the environment. We have a plan to tackle—
[Intervention]
Some hon. members:  Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order. I remind members that the time to speak is when they have been recognized.
The hon. member for Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre: Here we go again, Mr. Speaker. The Liberals have a separate deal for special interests that have powerful lobbyists. It says right here in their own background document there will be a separate pricing system for industrial facilities. They will get a 90% exemption from this Liberal carbon tax, while small businesses, soccer moms and suburban commuters will have to pay the tax on 100% of the energy they consume. 
Why is it that with this Liberal high-tax hypocrisy, those that emit the most pay the least?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, let us be perfectly clear. There is a cost to pollution, and everyone will pay the price for pollution. That includes large industry. On the other side, large industry will pay nothing, because the Conservatives do not believe there is a cost to pollution. They think polluting should be free. The system we are following for trade-exposed industry is the same followed in Quebec, in British Columbia, in California and in Europe. It creates the incentive for industry to reduce emissions but to stay competitive and keep good jobs in Canada.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, yes, in all those jurisdictions the minister just mentioned, the government wins and taxpayers lose. That has been the experience in every jurisdiction where there is a carbon tax. People pay more so governments can spend more, and that is the case with this same plan. According to the government's own briefing documents, the current government will collect more in taxes than it gives back in rebates, which means it is impossible for taxpayers to be made whole. Why is it targeting soccer moms, suburban commuters and seniors with this high-tax grab?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, we understand that climate change is real. We understand that there is a cost right now, and Canadians are paying it. Unlike the party opposite, which thinks polluting should be free, which has no plan to tackle pollution, we have a plan.
Let us talk about what people are saying about our plan. The president and CEO of the Business Council of Canada said:
 We support the price mechanism because it provides the economic incentive for consumers to change their behaviour and for businesses to invest in technologies that progressively reduce their emissions over time. 
Tracy Snoddon, from C.D. Howe, stated, “carbon pricing continues to be the most cost-effective option for achieving emissions reductions—”
Mr. David Anderson: For Kathleen Wynne too.
The Speaker: Order. I am not sure if the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands heard what I said a minute ago, but I would ask him to remember what I said a minute ago, which is to remember that members speak when they have the floor and not otherwise.
The hon. member for Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, there goes the minister quoting the lobbyists for the multi-millionaire CEOs. Of course they support this carbon tax. It is not a big expense for them when they have chauffeured limousines paid for by the company, especially if they are one of the companies that has the 90% exemption the Liberal government has provided to the large industrial corporations. The reality is that small businesses have no similar exemption. Why will small businesses, like a local corner store, pay more while large corporations, with their well-paid CEOs, get off?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, small businesses also care about tackling climate change, they also care about the environment and they understand the cost of inaction. We are supporting small businesses. We will be providing $1 billion through our climate plan in Ontario that will help support small businesses to be more energy efficient to save money.
Let us talk about who else is talking about our plan: the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment. This is good news for human health and the planet. This is how we protect people from the harmful impacts of heat waves, drought, wildfires, floods and hurricanes that are becoming more frequent and more intense—
The Speaker: Order. 
The hon. member for Carleton.
Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister was asked nine times whether or not small businesses would get the same exemption as large industrial corporations do under this Liberal carbon tax. Nine times he refused to answer. We know that this will cost more in fuel, heating and transportation for those small businesses. They are the lifeblood of our economy and they are already paying higher taxes as a result of the Prime Minister's tax increases. 
A direct question: Will small businesses get the same exemption as the large industrial corporations, yes or no?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, we have already said that there is going to be a price on pollution, and everyone is going to pay the price on pollution, whether one is a big industrial emitter or a small business. We are also going to help small businesses save money. When one is more energy efficient, one actually saves money.
However, let us talk about Stephen Harper's former director of policy who said, “We think the federal government is doing the right thing in putting a price on carbon in those provinces that have not done so, and in returning the money directly to households. This will...encourage lower emissions, while also ensuring that Canadian families will not be negatively affected.” 
Foreign AffairsMr. Guy Caron (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in a Tuesday interview with the CBC, the Prime Minister said, “I do not want to leave Canadians holding a billion dollar bill”. However, yesterday, the Prime Minister's Office backtracked on that number and said this supposed $1-billion penalty for cancelling the Saudi arms deal was an “expression”. I am not kidding. He said it was an “expression”. 
Canadians know this deal must be cancelled and have the right to know why the Prime Minister is using this as an excuse. Why is the Prime Minister making up numbers? Is it so that he does not have to cancel the arms deal with Saudi Arabia?
Hon. Marc Garneau (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course, we strongly demand and expect that Canadian arms exports are used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why our government is committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system under the Arms Trade Treaty.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.
Guy Caron: Mr. Speaker, is that seriously all they have to say?
After turning a deaf ear to appeals from Germany and our allies to at least suspend the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, the Prime Minister clearly stated on Tuesday that cancelling this contract would cost $1 billion.
Where does this figure come from? From his imagination, apparently, because the next day, his office said that it was just a figure of speech. A figure of speech means saying something like “this is not rocket science” or “this is not brain surgery”. It does not mean snatching a number out of thin air in response to a question that called for a specific figure.
Why is the Prime Minister inventing numbers like this? Is he trying to avoid having to cancel the contract?
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, we strongly demand and expect that Canadian arms exports are used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why our government is committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system. As the Prime Minister said today, we are actively reviewing Saudi Arabia's existing export permits.
Ms. Hélène Laverdière (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, for our allies, like Germany, the murder of Jamal Khashoggi was the tipping point. Chancellor Angela Merkel decided to stop exporting weapons to Saudi Arabia because it was the right thing to do. We have been calling for years for the Canadian government to do the same. 
Everyone knows the kingdom is one of the worst human rights offenders in the world. This alone should be enough. What are the Liberals waiting for?
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, our government is working with our allies to consider a number of options going forward. We are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia. We strongly expect that Canadian exports are used in a way that is consistent with Canada's foreign policy objectives and that fully respects human rights. We have frozen arms export permits before when we have had concerns about their potential misuse, and we will not hesitate to do so again. 
Hélène Laverdière: Mr. Speaker, the explanations coming out of Riyadh concerning the murder of Jamal Khashoggi are inconsistent and contradictory.
Today, for the first time, the Attorney General of Saudi Arabia spoke of a premeditated act. With the treatment of women, dissidents and religious minorities, not to mention the war in Yemen, and now this murder, we have reached the tipping point. We have been calling on the government to take action for years.
When will we stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia?
Marc Garneau: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, we are actively reviewing the situation with respect to our contract with Saudi Arabia.
We have frozen exports before when we suspected that these arms would be used to violate human rights.
We will not hesitate to use the same procedure in future if we are convinced that these arms will be used to violate human rights.
Carbon PricingHon. Ed Fast (Abbotsford, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family way more than the Liberals are letting on. As gas and electricity prices rise, small businesses will have to increase their prices to pay their bills, making it even more difficult to survive. 
This is not just a tax on carbon. It is a tax on everything: gasoline, home heating, groceries and transportation, and this tax does nothing to reduce emissions. With Halloween just around the corner, would the minister now agree that her carbon tax swindle is a trick not a treat? 
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, said, “You need a price on carbon, a price on pollution.... Canada, as of today, can have both.... [It will] unlock...investment decisions which will make...more low-carbon economy.” 
Dale Beugin, the executive director of Ecofiscal Commission, said, “Bigger households get bigger cheques” and “most households” will see rebates that are “larger than their carbon pricing costs. Households will see net gains.” 
The David Suzuki Foundation has stated that carbon pricing is essential to effectively fight—
The Speaker: Order. Most members in all parties are able to sit through question period and hear lots of things they do not like without interrupting or feeling they have to react before it is their turn. I would ask members to show a little respect for this place.
The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. 
Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal carbon tax is going to have a direct impact on the price of everything Canadians need to buy.
Of course the Liberals are couching this in lofty principles, saying that polluters must pay. The problem is that not all polluters are being treated equally. Small business owners will have to pay the full price, while major polluters will get a 90% discount. The little guys will have to pay more than the big guys.
Why the double standard?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to see the member across the aisle opposing all the parties in Quebec. Those parties want us to take action on climate change and put a price on pollution. They know that pollution is not free. 
The question is, what is the Conservative plan?
There is no Conservative plan. They want pollution to be free. They do not want to do anything to tackle climate change. Canadians are paying the price for pollution now. The Conservatives should come up with a plan and start taking the issue seriously.
Kelly Block: Mr. Speaker, the Saskatchewan Stock Growers Association is saying that beef producers will have to absorb the cost of this Liberal carbon tax. They export their products and must compete on international pricing. The impact of the Prime Minister's carbon tax will cut into ranchers' bottom lines and these additional costs will eat into the livelihoods of hard-working farm families. 
Why is the Prime Minister so set on punishing beef producers with higher costs for inputs, such as feed and animal transportation?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, we know that farmers understand the impacts of climate change. Droughts and floods are having severe impacts and we know that in the future that will continue to happen. That is why we are working with farmers. Our plan exempts farm fuels and diesels used for on-farm use. 
We are also supporting—
The Speaker: Order. I have already heard an awful lot today from the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa and the hon. member for Huron—Bruce and I would rather they wait until they have the floor, obviously, as is required by the Standing Orders.
The hon. Minister of Environment has the floor.
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, we will continue to work with farmers, we will continue to work with small businesses and we will continue to work with cities. We are working with everyone because we know that climate change has a real cost right now and we owe it to Canadians.
We owe it to the next generation to take serious action while making life more affordable for Canadians. We can do both, but what is the Conservative plan?
Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC): Mr. Speaker, farmers are upset that this government has brought on another tax that their international competitors do not have. While the member for Regina—Wascana claims that farmers will be exempt, the reality is their costs on fertilizer, fuel, parts and transportation will increase due to the carbon tax. The reality is they are being taxed and deceived by the Liberal government.
Why will the minister or the Liberal government not admit that this is not an environment plan but just another tax?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, why will the Conservatives not admit that climate change is real and that there is a cost that Canadians are paying right now, that it should not be free to pollute and that Canadians deserve to see a plan? If they have a plan, they should make it transparent and show us how they are going to do what they voted for.
The Conservatives voted for the Paris Agreement. They voted to support our international obligations, but we have seen nothing. They have no plan for the environment. They have no plan for the economy.
David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, when agriculture manufacturers like Honeybee Manufacturing in my own hometown keep their companies in rural areas, they face extra costs to be there, especially around transportation.
These plants are the heart of our communities. They allow young families and local businesses to prosper. The Liberals are dumping a tax on them that raises the price of everything, of fuel, transportation, heating and groceries. The cost of the Liberal carbon tax will be the death of small rural communities. 
Will the Prime Minister finally give small companies like Honeybee the same exemption he is giving to large corporate emitters?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, we just had a report from the United Nations a couple of weeks ago. Do my colleagues know what they talked about? They talked about the cost of inaction on climate change in the trillions of dollars. Canadians across the country are paying the cost right now. For those living in Saskatchewan or Manitoba, there have been extreme floods and droughts. For those living in Ontario or Quebec, there has been extreme heat that has literally killed people. There have been forest fires in B.C. 
Climate change is real. We need to take action. We need to do it in a way that makes life affordable, that grows the economy. We are doing both. The Conservatives have no plan.
The Speaker: I would ask the member for Yorkton—Melville not to interrupt when she does not have the floor. She has not been recognized.
Order. The hon. member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte.
Mr. Alexander Nuttall (Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's new carbon tax that the Liberals are calling a plan is nothing more than a complicated shell game. However, their games are not just affecting employers like Moore Packaging in Barrie. They are affecting the 300 employees and their families that will be hit with this tax.
The Liberals are telling these people when they take their money, somehow they will get more back. We know this is nothing more than a new way to pay for reckless spending. When will the Liberals admit that this tax is a tax?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting that the member on the opposite side was the same member who supported Patrick Brown and Patrick Brown supported putting a price on pollution. Let us be clear. We know that we need to take action on climate change. We need to make life more affordable. We are giving families more money that they will pay—
The Speaker: Order. It applies to both sides. Order.
The hon. Minister of the Environment.
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, I think it pretty much stands there. The member opposite will flip-flop depending on the issue. However, we cannot flip-flop on climate change. We have to be serious. We have a plan: tackle climate change and grow our economy.
Foreign AffairsMs. Irene Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP): Mr. Speaker, freedom, equality, justice and peace are Canadian values. We have a deal with the Saudis that enables them to wage war, silence dissidents and harm innocent civilians, a deal signed by the Conservatives and upheld by the Liberals. Canadians do not want to be complicit with Saudi Arabia's war crimes.
The government has a responsibility to fundamental human rights and an absolute obligation to stand up for Canadian workers. What is the Liberal plan for protecting workers and their families in light of this mess?
Ms. Pam Goldsmith-Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we strongly condemn the horrible murder of Jamal Khashoggi and are deeply concerned by reports on the participation of Saudi officials. 
We strongly demand and expect that Canadian arms exports are used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why our government is committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system and to the Arms Trade Treaty, which contrasts completely with the members opposite.
As the Prime Minister has said today, we are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.
The EnvironmentMr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP): Mr. Speaker, we hope you are going to defend human rights seriously.
The Speaker: The hon. member is an experienced member and he knows that he is to direct his comments to the Chair. When you say “you” or “your”, you are referring to the Speaker. I do not think he meant to refer to the Chair.
The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.
Alexandre Boulerice: Mr. Speaker, as the old saying goes, a good marriage is one made between a blind person and a deaf one. The Liberals and Conservatives are a match made in heaven when it comes to all this pipeline business.
On the one hand, we have a Prime Minister who refuses to listen to IPCC scientists. On the other, we have a Leader of the Opposition who refuses to see that the future of our planet is at stake. One swears he will resurrect energy east, and the other is leaving the door wide open to that, but neither one has any plans to protect the environment.
Are the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec ready to promise they will never resurrect energy east, or are they refusing—
The Speaker: Order. The hon. Minister of Environment. 
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, I was so pleased to be with the Prime Minister to announce that polluting will no longer be free in Canada.
We are standing with the people of Quebec, who know that we have to tackle climate change, that we have to put a price on pollution, and that we can grow our economy. We will keep working with them.
I was very pleased to get a call from my Quebec counterpart today. We talked about how we are going to keep working together to fight climate change and create good jobs for Quebeckers.
EthicsHon. Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I asked the Minister of National Defence on what date James Cudmore was offered a job in his office and the minister told me he would get back to me. His office called mine the next day and told me what date James Cudmore started in his office. That was not the question I asked, so I will ask it again. I know now that he does know the answer and I know he can speak about it because he already has.
On what date was the former CBC reporter offered a job as the director of policy in the office of the Minister of National Defence?
Hon. Ralph Goodale (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member once again is pursuing a line of questioning that relates very directly to a matter that is outstanding before the courts.
As has been explained repeatedly in the House, when there is a matter such as that which is sub judice, it is not only inappropriate for ministers to respond, but it is inappropriate for the question to be placed, which could impinge upon an outstanding court proceeding.
Candice Bergen: Mr. Speaker, it is that government that has said that James Cudmore's hiring is related to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's court case and it is the Minister of National Defence who has already spoken about this.
On November 20, Cudmore was a CBC reporter writing about shipbuilding contracts. By January 12, 2016, he was a Liberal employee working for the Liberal Minister of National Defence. He did not just get there on January 12 by accident. He was offered the job prior to that date.
The minister knows the answer. He has already spoken about it. Therefore, will the Minister of National Defence keep his word to me and tell me what date Mr. James Cudmore was offered a job?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, legal proceedings are conducted in courts of law. In the particular case referred to, the prosecution is very ably represented by the Public Prosecution Service of Canada. The defence counsel is obviously very adroit and a very accomplished professional. They have the rules of court. They have the laws of evidence. They have the normal procedures to follow. It is in a court of law, not on the floor of the House of Commons, that these matters should be prosecuted.
I would note that hon. members opposite do not have any mandate from either side in the issue to raise the issue here.
Hon. Steven Blaney (Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are allowed to know when CBC journalist James Cudmore was hired. We can say it here: he was hired on January 12. However, when we ask when he was offered the job, that remains a secret.
What do the Liberals have to hide?
Shipyard workers want to know why the other Canadian shipyards have billions of dollars and Davie has nothing.
What are the Liberals hiding?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman is a very good friend of the much beloved Peter Van Loan. Mr. Van Loan would advise him, in the very words he used in the House, “It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice.” Those are the words of Peter Van Loan, on May 11, 2015, and they apply equally well today. 
Steven Blaney: Mr. Speaker, do you know what Peter Van Loan would say today? He would say that it is scandalous that the Liberals are secretly preventing a shipyard from getting contracts. He would ask what the President of the Treasury Board was doing with Irving, which has plenty of money, when the biggest shipyard in Quebec has no contracts or just crumbs. Irving racked up more than $60 billion in contracts. He would say, “You should be ashamed. What do you have to hide?”
The Speaker: The hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis is an experienced member. He knows full well that he is to address his comments to the Chair. When he says the word “you”, he is talking to the Chair. I hope that was not his intention.
The hon. Minister of Public Safety.
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, not only did former Minister Van Loan cite that particular rule on the occasion I referred to, on May 11, 2015, but in fact the sub judice principle was raised in the House by the former Conservative government, not once, not twice but over 300 times, when it was serving as the Government of Canada, and it was probably viewed rather favourably by the Speaker of the day.
The Speaker: I am told that the hon. member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis was quoting someone else when he said “you”. If that is the case, then I apologize.
The hon. member for Essex.
Canadian HeritageTracey Ramsey: Mr. Speaker, Unifor journalists and media workers are in Ottawa this week with a clear message. The Liberals' inaction is why newspapers and media outlets are closing and why journalists are losing their jobs.
What do Canadian media workers want? Stop giving tax deductions for ad buys on Facebook and Google; end the free rides for Netflix, Apple and Spotify and make them support Canadian content; force those who profit from the system to contribute to the system. We have been saying this to the Liberals for three years. We cannot wait any longer.
What will it take for the government to act now?
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the issue of taxation, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have been entirely clear, but we also know that the Broadcasting Act has not been reviewed since before the Internet was in our homes.
The Conservatives did nothing for 10 long years, so we took action. We have appointed a panel of experts to help us modernize this act. Our starting point is clear. All players that participate in a system must contribute to the system, and there will be no free rides.
Mr. Pierre Nantel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, NDP): Mr. Speaker, there will be no free rides in five years.
Fourteen past presidents of the ADISQ sent a very clear message this week. Our music industry is in crisis. Our Quebec artists continue to create, but the problem is that the platforms are not covered by our laws.
We have been asking for the same thing for three years now. Apple, Spotify, YouTube, Netflix, Google and whatever other services are out there need to respect our culture and contribute to it in order to keep it strong. As the ADISQ has said, that takes political courage. The Liberals have been trying to muster up their courage for three years now.
Will the minister give us something other than the tired speaking points we heard from his predecessor, please? Come on.
Mr. Andy Fillmore (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will always support our culture, our artists and our creators, and that is why we doubled funding to the Canada Council for the Arts, increased Telefilm funding by $22 million and $13.5 million for the National Film Board. We restored and increased funding to CBC/Radio-Canada, with a $675-million investment. We also launched a new $125-million creative industries export fund.
After the Harper Conservatives gutted support to cultural industries during their lost decade, we have taken action to support this sector.
The EconomyMr. René Arseneault (Madawaska—Restigouche, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in September, the government released a report, saying that Canada's economy was strong and growing and that by this time next year, the typical middle-class Canadian family would be $2,000 better off as a result of our plan.
Nevertheless, there is still work to be done to stay on the path toward growth for our families and workers.
Could the Minister of Finance give us a brief update on the Canadian economy and tell us what the government plans to do next?
Hon. Bill Morneau (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, since 2015, we have kept our promise to Canadians to invest in the middle class and grow our economy.
As a result, where are we today? Our economy is among the strongest in the G7. Our unemployment rates are at near 40-year lows. Canadians have created more than half a million new jobs in the last three years.
I am pleased to say that on November 21 we will introduce our fall economic statement so we can update Canadians on further actions we will take to keep our economy growing, to keep people investing in our country and creating jobs.
JusticeMr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is refusing to turn over the evidence for the court case of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman. The Liberals are refusing to answer the simple questions on who are they trying to protect and what are they hiding.
Why are the Liberals refusing to turn over the documents? Have they already destroyed all the evidence?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, such an assertion is absolutely absurd. The fact is that there are legal procedures and processes that we have established in this country under our court system to pursue prosecutions and the defence of prosecutions. That is the forum in which these matters are dealt with. In the House of Commons, while the debate can get hot and furious at times, the fact is that matters that are sub judice must be left to the courts to deal with.
James Bezan: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the minister could hear my question over all the noise of the paper shredding machines up in the Prime Minister's Office right now.
If the government has nothing to hide, why is it refusing to answer the questions? We are not asking the Liberals to comment on the court case; we are asking them to turn over the evidence that serving vice-admiral can use to defend himself. Why the cover-up? Have they already destroyed the evidence? Are they trying to protect someone?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has an allegation of wrongdoing or of criminal behaviour, he should provide that information to the RCMP. He should also have the courage to make the allegation outside the House.
Mr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Vice-Admiral Norman is a man of honour and integrity. He always did his best for the Royal Canadian Navy. He needs evidence to defend himself. Obviously, the government is covering up an extremely embarrassing situation.
Could the government not have taken other measures to keep James Cudmore quiet?
Can the government assure us that no evidence has been destroyed in an attempt to cover up its real political motives?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, again, I advise the hon. gentleman that his allegation is absurd.
Border SecurityMr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the number of illegal border crossings continues to rise. Our border services officers estimate that there will be a wave of up to 200,000 Salvadoran asylum seekers who are currently in the United States and whose special status will be revoked. What is worse, the system is already broken and the minister has no plan. The Prime Minister has to make a decision. Will he let the whole world continue to make a mockery of our borders or will he have the courage to enforce and strengthen Canadian laws?
Will he deal with the safe third country agreement?
Hon. Bill Blair (Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by simply saying that the member opposite's assertion that the numbers are going up is simply wrong. We have seen a significant reduction of those numbers just over the past few weeks. In the past several months, we have seen as much as a 70% reduction over what we experienced last year. 
There is a firm plan in place to deal with this issue and we are monitoring the situation in other countries, including the United States, very carefully. Our senior officials are working hard. They are prepared and they are managing the situation quite ably.
JusticeMr. Murray Rankin (Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast support my bill to expunge criminal records for now-legal cannabis possession, and editorials in magazines and newspapers across the country prove it. Everyone knows that the government's pardon proposal just will not fix the problem. A pardon for a pot conviction will not help when someone fills out a rental form or a job application, but an expungement means that someone may truthfully say, “I have never been convicted of a criminal offence.” A pardon will not do that.
Will the government work with me to erase these records and let these thousands of Canadians get on with their lives?
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, we are always very happy to work with members of the opposition in constructive legislative endeavours, but I would also invite the hon. gentleman to look at the other side of the question as well, and he will find that a pardon can be a very effective tool. It is cheaper, it is faster, there is no fee, there is no wait time, the record is sealed and segregated. It can be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances, such as the person reoffending and committing another offence, and the effect of a pardon is protected by the Canadian Human Right Act.
InfrastructureMs. Brigitte Sansoucy (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Champlain Bridge cannot be paved in the winter, but taxpayers have been waiting for years and they will have to wait even longer.
The minister said that these were excusable delays, but this just shows us that P3s are not actually more effective.
Speaking of the private sector, I have to wonder whether the Liberals will make sure they recover every single cent we are owed in late penalties.
How much will these excusable delays cost us?
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going to see to it that the new toll-free Champlain Bridge is completed. Our priority remains the health and safety of those working on the new bridge and of the users of the current bridge.
I would like to reassure the people in the Montreal area that the Champlain Bridge is safe and that we are taking all necessary measures to ensure that it continues to be safe. We look forward to opening the new bridge by June 2019 at the latest.
Natural ResourcesMr. Jamie Schmale (Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has told Canadians more than once that he plans to phase out the energy sector, and Bill C-69 is exactly how he will do it. The no-more-pipelines bill means more regulations and longer application times. It means reduced transparency and less investment. It means increased uncertainty and further job losses. Hundreds of thousands of Canadian families and the workers in the energy sector depend on the resource sector. They are calling it the final nail in the coffin. 
When will the government kill the no-more-pipelines bill and save the Canadian resource sector?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, we understand the importance of the resource sector to Canada's economy. We also understand that to get resources to market, Canadians need to have trust in the system. 
We have worked very hard to develop a bill with businesses. We have been listening to the resource sector, listening to environmentalists, and listening to indigenous peoples to bring people together around a bill that would not only reduce timelines and ensure that we are making decisions on good science, but also that good projects go ahead. However, we need to make sure that we are rebuilding trust, we need to make sure we are listening to indigenous peoples and we need to ensure that we are making decisions—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary Midnapore.
Mrs. Stephanie Kusie (Calgary Midnapore, CPC): Mr. Speaker, in Calgary, Alberta, there is no trust in the current government.
Bill C-69 is the greatest threat to Canada's energy industry since the NEP. The energy industry is responsible for more than 500,000 jobs across Canada. However, thanks to the Prime Minister's no-more-pipelines bill, there will be no more major energy infrastructure projects built in Canada. Companies say that if the bill passes, they will stop investing in Canada.
When will the Prime Minister stop driving energy investment away and killing Canadian jobs?
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to protecting the interests of the energy sector and the people who work in it, we take no lessons from the Harper Conservatives, because they failed to diversify our non-U.S. global market and failed to build a single pipeline in 10 years to get our resources to non-U.S. markets. We are working hard and will continue to work hard to ensure that our resources get to the global market.
Mr. Matt Jeneroux (Edmonton Riverbend, CPC): Mr. Speaker, four pipelines. That is what the former Conservative government did, unlike those guys on that side of the House.
Bill C-69, the carbon tax, the tanker traffic bans are all unmistakable signs of a government that is hostile to the future growth of the energy sector. There is no doubt that the no-more-pipelines bill, Bill C-69, is a direct attack on Albertans.
The provincial NDP and the Prime Minister have punished hard-working Albertans enough.
When will the Minister of Natural Resources, who is from Edmonton, finally intervene and kill the bill?
Hon. Amarjeet Sohi (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when the Harper Conservatives formed government in 2006, 99% of Alberta's oil was shipped to the United States. When it got kicked out of office in 2015, 99% of Alberta's oil was still shipped to the United States. That is their failed decade, their decade of inaction in protecting Alberta's interests.
We are working hard to ensure that we get it right to build the pipelines, by looking after the environment and, at the same time, making sure that we are consulting with indigenous communities in a meaningful way. That is the right path forward.
Climate ChangeMr. William Amos (Pontiac, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the tornadoes that recently struck the national capital region, including my riding of Pontiac, caused more than $295 million in insured damage to homes, businesses and vehicles.
The Insurance Bureau of Canada says that “severe weather across Canada continues to highlight the financial costs of climate change to consumers and taxpayers.”
Clearly, the costs of climate change are being paid by every Canadian through rising insurance premiums.
Can the Minister of Environment and Climate Change tell the House how our government intends to support Canadian taxpayers?
Catherine McKenna: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for his question and for everything he has done to protect the environment and to fight climate change in the past ten years.
Canadians know that pollution comes at a cost. We are seeing its impact across the country, including in the riding of Pontiac. We have a plan. We said that we would put a price on what we do not want, meaning pollution, to get what we do want. We want cleaner air and less greenhouse gas emissions. We want a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren.
The Conservative Party has no plan. We will continue—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola.
Public SafetyMr. Dan Albas (Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve to feel safe and secure when they use their smart phones. However, the government has refused to ban Communist Chinese government-built technology from our 5G network. The 5G rollout will bring faster speeds, but it will also bring less security unless the government listens to our allies and bans Huawei.
When will the government say “No way” to Huawei?
David Lametti: Mr. Speaker, our government is open to global investment because it creates middle-class jobs. It helps grow our economy.
When it comes to telecommunications, we know that Canadians would like to see improvements in coverage and price, and we are committed to that. The 5G network is an emerging technology that has the potential to meet the explosion in consumer and industrial demand.
As regards the participation of any participant in our 5G networks, we will listen to the advice of our national security advisers. We will never, ever compromise our national security.
MulticulturalismMs. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, “Government and its information should be open by default.” Those were the Prime Minister's exact words in his mandate letter to the Minister of Heritage.
Secret, closed-door consultations on an anti-racism plan leaves Canadians and the organizations working every day to combat systemic racism in the dark.
The minister should know by now about the value of openness and public accountability. After all, thanks to question period, he learned that systemic racism actually does exist in Canada.
Will the minister do the right thing and open up the process?
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Canada is an open and diverse country, but there are still real challenges for many people in this country.
Throughout our history and even today, there are many people and communities who experience systemic racism, oppression and discrimination, preventing them from fully participating in our society.
These experiences are still felt by many Canadians, and now we can and must do better. That is why we are engaging communities across the country and people with lived experiences to modernize our approach and to develop concrete solutions to these problems. That is why we are undertaking these consultations. As we speak right now, our Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism is in one of those sessions.
International DevelopmentMr. Michael Levitt (York Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, the government announced that it was maintaining its financial contributions to UNRWA for the next two years. This organization has been beset by issues of neutrality with respect to its educational programs in the West Bank and Gaza, which is deeply concerning to many of my constituents in York Centre and many others who have contacted me.
Can the Minister of International Development update the House on the status of this contribution and what steps the government is taking to ensure UNRWA's neutrality and accountability?
Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau (Minister of International Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our funding for UNRWA is vital for the humanitarian needs in the region, and it is the same amount we have provided over the last two years. UNRWA has refocused its neutrality-related activities, like inspection and teacher training, which would not be done without Canada's re-engagement.
In the West Bank, I met with the Palestinian prime minister and the minister of education, and made our concerns clear about inappropriate content in PA textbooks. Our commitment to neutrality and due diligence is an essential condition of Canada's support to UNRWA.
International TradeMr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister tried to explain why he made so many concessions to the Americans on supply management. He said, and I quote, “The changes to market access in this agreement are similar to those in the TPP”.
In other words, the Prime Minister is saying that we did it once, so we can do it again. Wow, what a skilful negotiator. 
The Prime Minister needs to understand that concessions plus concessions means twice as many concessions. The Liberals do not know how to count—or how to negotiate.
Why are dairy, egg and poultry farmers always the ones paying twice for the Liberals' failures?
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. colleague, and I am sure he is also fully aware, that we are the party that implemented supply management and we are the government that protected it. My hon. colleague is also aware that when the negotiations started, the American government indicated quite clearly that it was going to end supply management, but we as a government protected it. 
We understand there has been an impact on our farmers and we will make sure they are fully and fairly compensated for their loss. We have supported, and will continue to support, our agricultural sector.
Foreign AffairsMr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker, “talking through one's hat” is a figure of speech. “Taking someone for a fool” is a figure of speech. However, the $1-billion price tag for cancelling a contract to sell arms to Saudi Arabia is not a figure of speech.
Does the Prime Minister take us for fools, or is he talking through his hat when he invents numbers to get out of cancelling deals with Saudi Arabia? 
Ms. Pam Goldsmith-Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government strongly condemns the horrible murder of Jamal Khashoggi and is deeply concerned by reports on the participation of Saudi officials. 
Our government is working with our allies to consider a number of options. We are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia. We strongly expect that Canadian exports be used in a way that is in line with our foreign affairs policy, and, of course, that fully respects human rights.
We have frozen export permits in the past, when we had reason to do so, and we will certainly consider that in the future.
Luc Thériault: Mr. Speaker, the truth is that the Prime Minister wants to keep selling arms. Raif Badawi's flogging sentence will not stop Canada from doing business, nor will the jailing of women who stand up for their rights, the killing of civilians in Yemen or the assassination of a journalist in a consulate.
What more does this government need to stop selling arms to this vile country? Maybe what it really needs is a spine.
Ms. Pam Goldsmith-Jones (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs (Consular Affairs), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, our government strongly condemns the heinous murder of Jamal Khashoggi and is deeply concerned by reports on the participation of Saudi officials. We strongly demand and expect that Canadian arms exports be used in a way that fully respects human rights. That is why our government is committed to a stronger and more rigorous arms export system and, of course, to the Arms Trade Treaty, in which we have been actively involved the entire time of the term of this government. As the Prime Minister said today, we are actively reviewing existing export permits to Saudi Arabia.
InfrastructureMr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Champlain Bridge project is facing further delays. There is no way the new bridge will be open by December 21. The Canadian government refuses to guarantee a date. All projects have deadlines.
How is it that the Canadian government could impose a deadline on Quebec and the municipalities to legalize pot, yet it is incapable of setting a deadline to open the Champlain Bridge?
Mr. Marco Mendicino (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we will deliver on our commitment to build a new toll-free Champlain Bridge. We are proud to be building a bridge that will last 125 years and will improve the quality of life of families in the Montreal region. The structure will be finished by the end of December, but some of the finishing touches, including paving, will have to be put off until next spring. We look forward to opening the bridge to traffic in June 2019 at the latest.
Ways and MeansBill Morneau: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 83(1), I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018, and other measures.
Pursuant to Standing Order 83(2), I ask that an order of the day be designated for consideration of the motion.
Business of the HouseMr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition House leader, I am honoured to stand today and ask the government House leader the Thursday question about the business of the House that is expected.
Hon. Bardish Chagger (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the remainder of the week and next week, our focus will be on report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-76, the Elections Modernization Act. 
On Monday of next week, we will commence second reading debate of Bill C-84, concerning animal cruelty, and Bill C-85, concerning the Canada-Israel free trade agreement.
The Speaker: Is the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands rising on a point of order arising out of question period? 
Ms. Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise this point of order earlier. I did not mean to interrupt the Thursday question.
The level of heckling in this place, and I have mentioned this before, has become unbearable. I am not able to hear the Minister of Environment's answers, even though I have an earpiece. 
I have a lot of criticisms of aspects of the government's climate plan too, but I would ask my friends on the Conservative benches to please show some restraint so we can hear the answers in this place. 
The Speaker: I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, although I want to point out that it is not exclusively one group, and that is important. 

Routine Proceedings
Government Response to PetitionsMr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 10 petitions. 
While I am on my feet, I move:
 That the House do now proceed to orders of the day. 

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? 
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Government Orders
Elections Modernization ActBardish Chagger: moved:
 That, in relation to C-76, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make certain consequential amendments, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage of the said bill and not more than one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the third reading stage of the said bill; and 
 That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment. 

Stephanie Kusie: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to see the government propose such an undemocratic measure on a bill that deals with democracy. What a joke.
We have a time allocation motion and an undemocratic action on a bill regarding democracy. This is just absolutely silly. I can certainly understand why the Liberals do not want to allow us the opportunity to talk more about this bill, and that is because it is so incredibly flawed and does a lot to prohibit democracy within our lovely nation. 
Sadly, I see it more as a public relations exercise by the government than as an attempt to impede fraudulent action, foreign interference and foreign influence. It is certainly understandable that the Liberals would not want to continue discussion on a democracy bill that is, in fact, not democratic. 
They are trying to appear to be saying that actions that impede democracy are bad, but sadly, the bill does not have the mechanisms to prevent fraud and interference. It does not go far enough, I am very sorry to say.
We put forward many amendments, on this side of the House, in an attempt to make the bill more watertight and to provide better electoral processes for Canadians, such as third parties having segregated bank accounts, as was recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer. However, this was another suggestion that was passed over by the government, unfortunately. In addition, there was third-party reporting between elections. These are the types of safeguards we, as the official opposition, tried to provide the Canadian public in an attempt to safeguard our democratic processes. 
As for foreign influence, this bill would do essentially nothing to avoid the possibility of foreign influence. We have seen dire and negative consequences in other jurisdictions, such as the United States and in the Brexit outcome. Our very own Prime Minister said that he thought there was not much foreign influence or interference during the last federal election. How could we hope for much better, when the starting point of the Prime Minister's thinking is that there was not much, when in fact, not much was too much?
In addition, Conservatives had concerns with regard to non-residency voting requirements. We pleaded for the five-year requirement, the oath to return to Canada, and the place of residency, in addition to mentioning—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is rising on a point of order.
Mr. Daniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, we have only half an hour to debate time allocation, and I believe a number of members would like to participate. I am wondering about the time allocated to particular members and if we could ensure that other members have an opportunity to participate in this limited debate.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): That is a very good point by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona. There was a change in Chairs, and the time ran a little long. 
If the hon. member will wrap it up very quickly, we will get the minister's answer.
Stephanie Kusie: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised to hear the hon. member from the NDP say that, because the NDP worked every step of the way with the government in impeding democracy in moving this bill forward, denying Canadians the opportunity to have their voice and the right to fair democratic processes.
I would ask the Minister of Democratic Institutions why Liberals do not want to see democracy served.
Hon. Karina Gould (Minister of Democratic Institutions, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians know that it is neither the Liberals nor the New Democrats who are working to impede democracy, considering it was the previous government that introduced Bill C-23. In fact, most of the amendments my hon. colleague and opposition members proposed were to return this bill to Bill C-23, in which, unfortunately, the previous government went out of its way to limit the ability of Canadians to participate in our democracy. Therefore, it is a bit rich, and slightly laughable, to hear from Conservatives on the other side how strongly they value democracy and democratic participation in our country, when they did things to impede that process.
Bill C-76 would do much to repeal all those unfair elements in Bill C-23. It would ensure that the election in 2019 had the integrity Canadians deserve and expect and that the process would be fair and protected.
Mr. Nathan Cullen (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Canadians can tolerate quite a bit from our politics sometimes, whether they have a left or centre or right perspective. One of the things I have noticed that they cannot tolerate is straight-up hypocrisy. 
I am looking at the member for Winnipeg North, who has now joined us here. 
The member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, who was here moments ago, moved a motion a couple of years ago in this place. That motion said we should never use the guillotine of time allocation to shut down debate in Parliament on any bills that deal with our democracy, because they are so fundamental. 
One would have to ask the Liberals: How did we get here? There must have been some massive impediment that made them have to go back on their word and force time allocation on Parliament. 
The bill to fix the unfair elections act, which New Democrats support, was introduced almost two years ago. They must have been working hard in those two years in the hope of getting this legislation through in time for the next election. 
We have now found out that they did not work on the bill. They sat on the bill month after month. We pleaded with them to show us the bill so we could debate it and pass it through the House.
The Liberals introduced Bill C-76 so late that the Chief Electoral Officer has told them they blew the deadline. A bunch of things in the bill will not even happen for the 2019 election.
Canadians are very frustrated with the Liberals, especially with respect to issues around voting and democracy. They broke their sacred promise to make 2015 the last election under first past the post. We really thought they would have learned a lesson that the urgency of now is incredibly important. It was not important to them.
Now the Liberals are introducing the exact same motion, word for word, that Stephen Harper used to ram his bill through Parliament. They want to use it to force their legislation through Parliament and are looking around for someone to blame. They cannot find anyone.
My question for the minister is simple. We had an opportunity to fix privacy rules in Canada to ensure that our democracy and our voting are free and fair. Why did the Liberals choose to ignore all the evidence that the committee heard, which screwed up elections in England and the U.S.? Why did they choose to expose Canadian elections to hacking and tampering by foreign influences because parties will not have to follow any privacy rules whatsoever under this legislation?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to work with my colleague on this file. It has been great having him as the critic for democratic institutions, particularly with respect to this piece of legislation. New Democrats are supportive of the bill and most of the elements in it. We are working hard to get this done.
As was noted, it is important to get this done in time for the 2019 election. Unfortunately, every time members went to move to clause-by-clause at committee, the Conservative members decided to filibuster. Therefore we find ourselves in a time crunch. However, I am very optimistic about moving the bill forward so we can ensure that our elections are protected.
When it comes to privacy and the issues the member raised, I would note that the particular examples he is talking about are private companies that fall under PIPEDA. The ethics committee is currently undertaking a study on this, and I look forward to hearing the results.
This is an important issue, but it requires a bit more study and I think we can find the right solutions.
Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC): Mr. Speaker, here we are once again with time allocation on an electoral reform bill, on a bill that would change how we run our elections. 
I wish I could say I am surprised by the Liberals, but this is yet another failure on their part. They failed when they tried to do electoral reform. When they did not get what they wanted, they left it. Bill C-33, introduced in November 2016, was left unmoved and unloved on the Order Paper for the last two years.
The Chief Electoral Officer and the former chief electoral officer both said they needed legislation passed with royal assent by April 30 of this year, yet this legislation was not even introduced in this place until April 30. This was yet another failure on the part of the Liberals.
Why will they not just admit this is another attempt to game the system in their favour?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, Canadians know this legislation is important for our democracy. When it comes to important elements like vouching, and when it comes to ensuring that the most vulnerable among us can cast a ballot, this legislation would make that happen.
Experts across the country have called for the passage of the bill. Let us all work together and get this done. I sincerely hope that my colleagues on the other side of this place will recognize the important underlying democratic values and principles that are encompassed in Bill C-76 and will work with us to pass the bill in a timely way, because it is important for Canadians and it is important for Canadian democracy.
Mr. Robert-Falcon Ouellette (Winnipeg Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the people of Winnipeg believe that the strength of our democracy depends on the participation of as many Canadians as possible. This bill would undo many of the unfair aspects of the Harper government's unfair elections act, as we would be making it easier and more convenient for Canadians to vote. We would be making the electoral process more accessible to Canadians with disabilities, caregivers and members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and we would be restoring voting rights to more than one million Canadians living abroad. This bill would strengthen our laws, close loopholes, bring in a more robust enforcement regime and would make it more difficult for bad actors to influence our elections.
After the 2015 election, the Chief Electoral Officer made over 130 recommendations on ways to improve how our democracy functions. After careful study and consideration by parliamentary committees both in the House and the Senate, and with the input of experts from across Canada, the Government of Canada introduced the elections modernization act. Could the minister speak about the deadline we face with the next election, as well as the 130 recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer and how we have implemented most of them?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague Winnipeg Centre for the important information contained in his excellent question. He did a very good job of summarizing some of the most important elements of in this bill.
With regard to implementation, it is extraordinarily important that we pass this bill quickly. This bill has been before the House for almost six months now. The committee has conducted an extensive study of it and has brought forward important comments and amendments. We have accepted amendments to this bill by both of the main opposition parties, which is important. Of course, these are amendments that would improve the bill and not return it to its former state with the Canada Elections Act.
As my colleague noted, the former CEO of Elections Canada brought forward over 100 recommendations for how we could improve the Canada Elections Act. Bill C-76 would implement 85% of those recommendations. I think we can all agree that the CEO of Elections Canada has the best interest of Canadians and Canadian democracy at heart, and this bill would do exactly that.
Daniel Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, the previous government made a lot changes to the Elections Act that were controversial. Our party ran to repeal those changes. The Liberal Party ran to repeal those changes. We are three years into this Parliament and we still have not seen those changes made, and we had a pretty clear deadline from the elections commissioner for when those changes had to be made. We knew at the very beginning of the Parliament what it would take to repeal the changes that were made in the last Parliament. There was agreement between our party and the party currently in government, as well as a broad base of Canadians, that those changes needed to be repealed.
I am wondering how we got to where we are three years later. I will spare the partisan jabs. Why should a typical Canadian who was concerned about the integrity of the elections process, who felt that those changes made in the last Parliament needed to be repealed, not feel disappointed? The government had three years, two ministers of democratic institutions, three if we count an interim minister, who could not deliver just a basic repeal of the nefarious changes made in the last Parliament. That is the lowest bar it had to meet, and it had almost three years to get it done by April 30 of this year. It failed to do it. Why should Canadians not look at this as a major failure? Why should they not feel disappointed that at least those changes were not made by April 30 of this year to make sure that their intended repeal, as discussed in the last election, was on time and implemented by the next election? There are important issues that could have been addressed in a separate bill.
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that my hon. colleague and I can agree on the contents of the bill and its importance to Canadians. Therefore, I would urge all members, particularly the New Democrats, to support us in this effort to ensure that we are doing what is right for Canadians.
His comments also allow me to take a moment to thank my hon. colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, who stepped into this portfolio while I had my first child and I took brief maternity leave. I am very grateful to him taking on part of this responsibility. I am very appreciative of all the colleagues in the House who were able to support me in this process.
I am very excited about the forward momentum this piece of legislation has. I am encouraged that we will work together, particularly with my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, to ensure that this bill is in place ahead of the next election and that we can assure Canadians that their elections will be safeguarded, protected, and will have the integrity we all expect and trust to have in our democracy.
Mr. Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge, CPC): Mr. Speaker, returning to the matter right now, namely the time allocation motion, how on earth could the current government possibly justify invoking time allocation on a democratic reform bill that has a number of amendments to be debated in the House? Voters send their members of Parliament here to be their voice. Therefore, how can the Liberals possibly justify bringing time allocation on a democratic reform bill with substantial amendments to be debated?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to hear that from my colleague across the way, because when his party was in government it used time allocation to move forward a piece of legislation that further limited democracy.
What is also of note is that since this bill was introduced, the official opposition has taken every opportunity possible to obstruct the progress of this piece of legislation. Even yesterday it put forward 177 spurious amendments that would return this piece of legislation to what was in Bill C-23, which, as we heard from experts and Canadians across the country, limited people's ability to participate in democracy.
This piece of legislation is incredibly important. It expands the franchise. It ensures that every Canadian citizen who has the right to vote will be able to vote.
On this side of the House, we firmly believe that our democracy is strongest when all Canadians participate in it. I understand that that is not the case with my colleagues on the opposite side. However, for us, democracy should be available to all Canadians and we are working diligently to ensure that is the case in 2019.
Ms. Cheryl Hardcastle (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in my riding of Windsor—Tecumseh, Canadians see right through this. We call it “Eddie Haskell politics”, because what we have here are a lot of smiling faces and earnest declarations, as the minister just said, to ensure that we are doing what is right. Therefore, let us make it clear. After a mere two hours of debate, the current government has called time allocation on an exercise of electoral reform that every Canadian has a vested interest in, no matter their age, because of the legacy of it. I just wanted to make that clear to Canadians.
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the New Democrats support the principles and clauses in this bill. We look forward to working with them to ensure that this can be in place for the 2019 election, because we share so many of the important values that underpin this legislation. I know that we all want this to be in place so that it will benefit all Canadians ahead of 2019.
Hon. Peter Kent (Thornhill, CPC): Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleagues on this side of the House have addressed the fact that this piece of legislation has come to the House extraordinarily and unacceptably late. This should have been presented a year ago. The fact that it was so clumsily assembled is reflected in the fact that the Liberal government put forward almost six dozen amendments of its own to try to correct this clumsily written piece of legislation. Now, after only two and a half speeches by members on the opposition side of the House on this deeply flawed bill, the government has imposed the legislative guillotine of time allocation, enabled by its parliamentary majority, to cut off debate.
I know that my hon. colleagues on the government side of the House love to invoke Peter Van Loan's name. However, when this same legislation was passed by the previous government, our Harper government, a very similar piece of legislation from which, regrettably, many elements have been stripped in Bill C-76, there were many more hours and days of debate than are being allowed here today. Only three opposition speakers have risen on this side of the House and, all of a sudden, time allocation has been imposed. 
How can the current government possibly look Canadians in the face with any sort of respect and say that it is working to properly defend the Canadian electoral process? 
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, the irony of those comments by my colleague is that even if they allowed many more hours of debate, they did not accept any amendments that would actually have improve the bill to ensure that more Canadians would able to vote. In fact, they did none of that. They did not accept amendments and made it more difficult for Canadians to participate in our electoral process, which is something that this bill undoes, and rightfully so.
With regard to amendments that were made at committee, these came from all political parties. That is is very important. Furthermore, the amendments introduced by by the government side were based on recommendations by the CEO of Elections Canada and the Commissioner of Canada Elections to strengthen provisions in the bill. On this side of the House, we respect our independent officers of Parliament and we appreciate their advice in this process. That is exactly what we did following the intense study that was undertaken at committee and the advice of those independent officers of Parliament. 
Therefore, I think that all Canadians can rest assured that this bill does good things for democracy. In fact, the CEO and the commissioner have both called for its speedy implementation to ensure that they have the necessary tools, which I might add are expansive for the commissioner but enable him both to compel testimony and prosecute these issues. Those tools would have been useful in previous scandals, which the other side of the House is quite familiar with when it comes to elections.
Nathan Cullen: Mr. Speaker, talking about respect for the independent officers of Parliament and respect for the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner, both of them testified at committee that there are no privacy rules governing political parties in this bill, that there is one deep flaw in this bill, that political parties need to be subject to some sort of privacy rules.
My friend from Toronto would know well that all Bill C-76 says is that the parties have to put some kind of policy on their websites somewhere. The policy does not have to be enforceable. The policy does not actually have to protect Canadians' data and the integrity of our elections. They just seem to have one.
I have a very specific question for the minister. I know she prides herself on answering questions directly. Can she point to a single bit of evidence of a witness before committee saying that Bill C-76, as drawn up with regard to privacy, is sufficient? I can point to the Chief Electoral Officer, whom the minister just said she respects, and I can point to the Privacy Commissioner, whom she said she respects, and I can point to the privacy and ethics committee, which has studied this question already and has recommended, as my friend would know, that privacy should apply to political parties, including Liberals on that committee, and the Liberal sitting right beside her. 
Therefore, my question is this. If Bill C-76 is our once-in-a-generation legislation to make sure that our elections are free and fair and that in order to do that there must be enforceable rules applied to all political parties that would allow the Privacy Commissioner to review and chastise those parties that break those rules—which is so fundamental to Canadians being able to cast a vote in a free and fair election and that experts from England and the United States said that if they had to do it over again, they would have had stronger privacy rules—why is the minister, with this bill, telling Canadians that when we go to vote in 2019, foreign influence, hacking our systems, and going after data from the Liberals, Conservatives and the NDP will be allowed under this bill she is forcing through Parliament, contrary to their promises in previous Parliaments?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, as I have said to my colleague numerous times at committee and outside this House, I do believe that Bill C-76 takes an important first step when it comes to privacy, by requiring political parties to publicly post a privacy policy statement on their websites.
When we talk about concrete action and facts, shortly after Bill C-76 was introduced, the New Democratic Party actually changed their public privacy policy statement. Thus, it actually did have an effect, because prior to that there was a very weak policy statement on the New Democrat website. This will enable Canadians to look at what those privacy policies are.
In regard to enforceability, it is important to note that if a political party does not post a privacy policy, it could in fact be deregistered by Elections Canada, which is quite a significant stick.
I have also said to my hon. colleague numerous times that I think this particular issue requires more study. I am not opposed to a privacy regime for political parties. However, I think that we need to determine what exactly that would looks like in a way that political parties could conduct the important work they do in engaging with Canadians while also protecting their privacy.
When it comes to foreign interference, this bill does many important things and takes many important steps to safeguard Canadian information, to understand where influence and interference are coming from and to provide greater transparency for Canadians.
We can be very proud of this legislation and the important steps it takes ahead of 2019.
Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for laying out the facts and putting them on the table. The reality is that the bill was held up at committee. It was filibustered by the Conservatives. When it came to the House yesterday, we had 178 amendments read one-by-one, which wasted another hour and 15 minutes. However, the Conservatives will go on and on about how they do not have an opportunity to debate this.
Could the minister help to shed some light on the process the bill has gone through and how it has been slowed down along the way to get to where it is today?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, the member's question sheds light on the process that has taken place since the bill was introduced, particularly by my colleagues from the official opposition, who at every single opportunity tried to obstruct and slow down the progress of the bill. In fact, since they completed their study of witnesses in June, every time the government members would try to move to clause-by-clause, they threatened or moved to filibuster. They took every opportunity to slow down the progress, as was seen yesterday when they introduced 177 amendments after the committee went through clause-by-clause. That was in addition to the hundreds of amendments they had put forward. The media reported that what they were doing looked like obstruction at committee and in this place. 
I thank my hon. colleague for raising that. It is quite clear that the official opposition members do not want the bill to proceed because they do not believe that every Canadian who has the right to vote should cast that ballot.
Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC): Mr. Speaker, apparently the Liberals think they can propose bills that are 200 to 400 pages long and then they get to decide how many amendments from the opposition are too many. Maybe if they did not put forward omnibus bills, we would not move as many amendments. 
The minister seems not to know that the voter turnout went up dramatically in the last election. Therefore, if there were a bill that would disenfranchise Canadians, and we might all have different explanations for why that turnout, clearly the new elections law in no way obstructed that dramatic increase in the number of people who participated.
I would like to ask the minister about foreign interference in our elections. The elections bill that she has put forward puts in place no meaningful barriers to foreign interference in elections. It would allow external agents and entities to send money to Canadian organizations before an election, which could then be used during an election. There are no meaningful provisions to prevent the transfer of funds before an election, which will then be mingled with local funds and used to influence the direction of the election.
Why did the minister not put meaningful measures in the bill to prevent foreign interference in elections?
Karina Gould: Mr. Speaker, I first would like to begin by addressing the huff and bluster from my colleague on the opposition side. If we look at the amendments the members put forward, they are with regard to deleting important provisions like vouching, deleting important provisions that would prevent Canadians from casting their ballots, deleting provisions that would enable Canadians to participate in our elections. 
The hypocrisy and the irony from that side is unbelievable. I would invite Canadians to look at the amendments put forward yesterday. When they read through them, they will come to an agreement with us, to ensure the bill gets passed, and they will know who is protecting Canadian democracy and working hard to ensure it is accessible, fair and the process has its integrity.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mr. Anthony Rota): It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Bardish Chagger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 5:30 p.m.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
The Speaker: It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon West, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay, Indigenous Affairs.
Message from the SenateThe Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-79, An Act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
Royal AssentThe Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows: 
 Rideau Hall 
 October 25th, 2018 
 The Honourable 
 The Speaker of the House of Commons 
 Ottawa 
 Mr. Speaker, 
 I have the honour to inform you that Ms. Assunta Di Lorenzo, Secretary to the Governor General and Herald Chancellor, in her capacity as Deputy of the Governor General, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 25th day of October, 2018, at 3:51 p.m. 
 Yours sincerely, 
 Marie-Geneviève Mounier 
 Associate Secretary to the Governor General 
The bills assented to on Thursday, October 25, 2018, were Bill C-65, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (harassment and violence), the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1 and Bill C-79, an act to implement the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership between Canada, Australia, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper.

Private Members' Business
Filipino Heritage MonthThe Speaker: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism has nine minutes remaining in his speech.
Mr. Gary Anandasangaree (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism (Multiculturalism), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today once again in support of Motion No. 155 to designate the month of June as Filipino heritage month. As I initially indicated, I would like to thank my good friend and colleague from Scarborough Centre for bringing forward this important motion.
As members know, Filipino Canadians are the third-largest Asian Canadian group in our country. The 2016 Canadian census shows that over 837,000 people of Filipino descent live in Canada, and that is expected to hit one million in a few years. The same data tell us that Tagalog is the fastest-growing language in Canada. Based on a study conducted from 2011 to 2016, the use of Tagalog has increased by a staggering 35%. The Filipino community has embraced Canada, and Canada has welcomed and will continue to welcome its heritage, culture and contributions. Therefore, on the government's part, I am pleased to support this motion.
Before I get to the substantive areas of my comments, I want to acknowledge the enormous Filipino community in Scarborough, who work very hard. I know I have a significant population. Just recently, the Filipino Centre Toronto moved from downtown Toronto to Scarborough in the riding of my good friend, the member for Scarborough North. Koro Pilipino is a choir group that regularly goes to St. Joseph's, and I often go there for Christmas. St. Joseph's Christmas mass is one of the things that I look forward to during that season. As well, there is Seniors in Action, a very vibrant senior population of Filipino Canadians who have, in their retirement and twilight years, danced away many evenings throughout the year. St. Joseph's Parish is located in my riding. It is the only Catholic church in my riding and we have monthly Filipino masses. It is one that I often attend, especially during holidays. Of course, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate my good friend, Garry Tanuan, who has just been re-elected as the local Catholic school board trustee.
This is the type of vibrant Filipino Canadian community that exists in the Scarborough—Rouge Park riding, and in Scarborough generally. This is not unique to Scarborough. The Filipino Canadian community is vibrant and strong in many parts of this country. My good friend from Winnipeg North routinely talks about their successes, as do many other colleagues.
I want to give some perspective. June is an important month in Philippine history and culture. Independence Day takes place on June 12. It is an annual celebration that is celebrated not just in the Philippines but around the world, in recognition of the independence of the Philippines from Spain in 1898. Recognizing June as Filipino heritage month would speak to the historical and cultural significance of this month to the vibrant community.
Canadians of Filipino heritage have contributed in many invaluable ways to the fabric of our society. Many Filipino Canadians have received international recognition for their work and established themselves as leaders and trendsetters in their fields. They continue to leave an indelible mark on our diverse fabric in every aspect of our lives, strengthening Canada in this process.
Filipino Canadians have attained notable political stature in Canada, and are tireless champions of multiculturalism and advocates for the most vulnerable members of our society. The Hon. Rey Pagtakhan made history by being the first Filipino Canadian to be elected to Parliament. In 1988, he won a seat in the House of Commons in the riding of Winnipeg North. Mr. Pagtakhan served as a parliamentary secretary to Prime Minister Jean Chrétien from 1996 to 1998, and was the first Filipino Canadian appointed to cabinet when he took on the role of secretary of state in 2001. In 2017, he was invested as a member of the Order of Manitoba. As an anti-racism champion, he was given an award in September 2018 by the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Incidentally, today is the 25th anniversary of the election of Prime Minister Chrétien, if I could just digress for a moment.
Filipino Canadians are very prominent in Canadian film, television, radio broadcasting, newspapers and magazines. They are active in their communities, whether it be helping newcomers through the Multicultural Helping House Society in Vancouver or organizing festivals, like the Taste of Manila, Manitoba Filipino Street Festival and Fiesta Filipino Calgary. They are business owners and add invaluable diversity to our multicultural country.
The Filipino community has given Canada so much. Its hard work and dedication has a vast impact on culture and heritage and is often overlooked.
One of the interesting statistics about Filipino Canadians is that there are more women of Filipino heritage than men. This is in part due to the immigration patterns, where oftentimes many women have undertaken the journey to Canada to work in precarious employment situations. Their labour is essentially used in many parts of our country to support Canadians, be it through the health care system or through assistance for children or seniors. It is an enormously difficult situation. Oftentimes people are separated from their families for many years.
I know of the hard work of many of these mothers, particularly, and I want to thank them for their sacrifice. These women have worked so hard to build a life for themselves and their families. It is that bold and difficult journey that has really bolstered the community to the numbers we see today, and the contributions they make throughout our country.
I want to give an example. Mikey Bustos is a vlogger, actor and author. He is a popular YouTuber with over 375 million views on his channels. His popularity has won him prizes and accolades. In addition, he was a finalist on Canadian Idol.
There are other examples, like Martina Ortiz-Luis, a prominent young singer of Philippine heritage. She was on Parliament Hill to sing O Canada this past year.
Maria Aragon is a prominent singer of Filipino descent. She was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Her rendition of Born this Way by Lady Gaga went viral and reached over 11 million views within a week. Her cover also garnered her a performance with Lady Gaga herself in 2011.
This designation of June as Filipino heritage month would enable all Canadians an opportunity to reflect on, celebrate and appreciate the history, heritage and important contributions of the Filipino Canadian community and to celebrate their successes.
Our multicultural heritage is about more than just a commitment to welcoming diverse people from around the world. It is a commitment to principles of equality and freedom, grounded in human rights and enshrined in our laws and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The contributions of Filipino Canadians are vital to our social, economic and political fabric. Today we have an opportunity to acknowledge the critical role Filipino Canadians have in Canada's rich cultural fabric as a country and an opportunity to recognize that their contributions to Canada are appreciated and valued.
Once again, I would like to thank my good friend from Scarborough Centre for bringing forward this motion and reiterate our support for making each June Filipino heritage month.
Steven Blaney: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak this afternoon on behalf of the Conservative Party in support of this motion, designating June as Filipino heritage month.
My colleagues and I in the Conservative Party of Canada are pleased to support this motion to designate June as Filipino heritage month. 
The Philippines is a country in southeast Asia with more than 105 million inhabitants. Canada is home to one of the largest, if not the largest, Philippine diaspora communities in the world.
I was just speaking with my colleague from Abbotsford while my hon. colleague from the other side was speaking. He reminded me that over the course of the last year we have seen a large wave of Filipino citizens coming into Canada. At one point, they were even the largest number of immigrants our country was welcoming. In that regard, it is more than suited to support and recognize the contributions of these new fellow Canadian citizens of Filipino heritage.
It is indeed a growing community, something to which my colleague just referred. It is a community with a rich and vibrant culture and a community made up of hard-working Canadian citizens. It is certainly one of their traits. In all, it is a community that contributes to strengthening the social fabric of Canada. Through its contributions, it is a community which makes our country the best in the world.
I had the privilege of sitting in the Conservative caucus with an honourable colleague who has passed away, the late Senator Tobias Enverga. I would like to take a few moments to pay tribute to this great man, who would be very proud on this day. He was a proud member of the Canadian Filipino community.
Senator Enverga was born in the Philippines, and like many other Filipinos, he chose Canada as his new home. After arriving in Canada, he worked hard to support his family and his children and build a better life for them, while also throwing himself wholeheartedly into Canadian life. 
In 2010, Tobias Enverga was elected as a City of Toronto school board trustee, becoming the first Canadian of Filipino origin to be elected to this municipal position in Toronto. He was a passionate advocate of high-quality education for Canadian youth. He held this trustee position until 2012.
In 2012, Tobias Enverga was again to make history for the Canadian Filipino community. He was appointed to the Senate of Canada by the Right Hon. Stephen Harper. He became the first Canadian of Filipino origin to serve in the Senate. I am sure colleagues from the other place and from here acknowledge he served with great honour. He was a source of pride not only for members of my party, but for all parliamentarians and Canadians.
Senator Enverga also launched the Philippine Canadian Charitable Foundation, which focused on bringing together the Filipino Canadian community to promote the spirit of charity. The senator was a kind soul, someone of whom the Filipino community and all Canadians can be proud. Again, on this very day, he would be very proud to see his welcoming country acknowledging not only his contributions, but the contributions of all members of the Filipino community.
Hopefully, when the motion is passed and adopted, in June we will have an opportunity to acknowledge the great contribution of the Filipino community to our country.
One way in which this community is contributing to our country is through the outstanding entrepreneurial spirit of the Filipino members. Canadians of Filipino origin have founded several businesses and even brought some businesses from the Philippines to Canada. This includes the Philippine National Bank and several food businesses, such as Goldilocks bake shop, Max's of Manila, the Seafood City Supermarket and Jollibee, which recently made the news after announcing it would be setting up shops in several Canadian cities like Winnipeg. Hopefully, we will get one in Quebec City and even in Lévis.
Speaking of Winnipeg, I mentioned there was a large diaspora of Filipino people in Canada. I discovered. while preparing for this speech with my team. that Filipino Canadians represent almost 9% of the city of Winnipeg's population and about 7% of Manitoba's population. Therefore, it is a large and significant footprint on the landscape of many of these western provinces and is certainly helping their prosperity.
About 25,000 Canadians of Filipino heritage work in Montreal, and there are nearly 10,000 more right here in the Ottawa-Gatineau region.
The Filipino community also contributes to our media, through Filipino Canadian publications like the Filipino Canadian Magazine and Juan Radio 96.1 FM, which is Vancouver's first Filipino radio program.
If people are willing to discover and encounter the amazing Filipino culture, they can experience the food by checking out one of the many Filipino food festivals hosted throughout Canada, like Toronto's Taste of Manila, which is attended by about 350,000 people every year. 
My colleague, the parliamentary secretary for heritage, mentioned a lot of the contributions made by Filipino members to the Canadian cultural landscape, especially in the emerging media scene. He referred to very prominent people of whom we are very proud. Filipino Canadians are also contributing to Canadian sports. 
Take, for example, Filipino-Canadian hockey player Matt Dumba, who now plays for the Minnesota Wild.
We have Olympians, such as Olympic archer Crispin Duenas, Olympic skater Gilmore Junio and Olympic boxer Rey Fortaleza. Maybe we will have the privilege of having those people in this very place when we welcome all the Olympic sports athletes. It is certainly a source of pride for all Canadians.
If we look at soccer, which we know is a very popular sport there, the de Guzman brothers have made us proud. Julian and Jonathan de Guzman made it to Europe's elite soccer leagues, which is quite an accomplishment, including the Bundesliga and the Premier League.
We can be proud of all these people, who left the Philippines for Canada and who contribute to our prosperity. I just want to say that we support the motion. We will be pleased to support the motion through the next steps and send a message of openness to the Filipino community.
Ms. Sheri Benson (Saskatoon West, NDP): Madam Speaker, with pleasure I rise today in full support of the motion to designate June as Filipino heritage month in Canada. As the member for Saskatoon West, I am proud to represent many constituents of Filipino descent. The Filipino community in Saskatoon, indeed in Saskatchewan and all throughout Canada, has enriched our cultural diversity. Its members have worked and volunteered beside us, contributed to our joint community-building projects, generously offered their leadership in times of need, and have become our friends and neighbours.
In fact, the 2016 Canadian census tells us that Saskatchewan has over 20,000 Tagalog speakers, one of the official languages of the Philippines, an increase of over 123% since 2011. Specifically, in Saskatoon, of the residents who identified themselves as immigrants in that census, nearly one quarter hailed from the Philippines. That is 10,000 strong and growing. 
The 2016 census shows the Tagalog language as the immigrant language most commonly spoken on the Prairies: 20,000-plus people list it as their mother tongue, 2% of the population, and over 11,000 people say it is the language they most commonly speak at home. In Saskatoon, Tagalog now ranks behind English as the second most common mother tongue. 
According to the most recent annual report of the IRCC, the Philippines is Canada's top source country for new permanent residents with over 42,000, almost 14% of new permanent residents. This has been the case every year since 2013. I am extremely proud of the Filipino Canadian community in my riding. Its members have contributed so much to our shared economic prosperity in Saskatchewan while at the same time building a better life for themselves and their families. 
I am proud to represent the residents of the Saskatoon Confederation Park neighbourhood, and it is with extra pride that I say this neighbourhood includes the largest population of Filipinos in my city. Of course, at one time, the community was much smaller, but that did not deter Rose Lacsamana and her family who, 10 years ago, opened a Filipino store targeted at the small but growing Filipino community. It is this type of leadership and forward thinking and risk taking, by Rose and many others, who built up a business and while doing so, built up our community. It is through these efforts of local Filipino Canadian business owners that Saskatoon was able to welcome newcomers from the Philippines with open arms. I thank Rose and her husband JR for their venture, the Global Pinoy Food Store, and for believing in our community to grow and prosper. I congratulate them for 10 years of service to our community.
One of my favourite things to do as an MP is to attend citizenship ceremonies in my riding. During my constituency week in October, I attended not one but two ceremonies. Both were, of course, very special, but one was extra special for a couple of reasons. First, it was Citizenship Week in Canada. Second, we were gathered at the wonderful Saskatoon Farmers Market and I want to thank Erika Quiring, operations manager at the Saskatoon Farmers Market, for hosting us. Third, the Institute for Canadian Citizenship organized an opportunity for me and other community leaders to host table conversations with our brand new citizens. 
I met lvan and his family from Iran and Rachel who was there with her sister. Rachel was nervous and shy, but very happy to be getting her citizenship and happy to be together again with her sister and other extended family. Rachel came to Canada from the Philippines as a live-in caregiver. She had waited many years to get her citizenship. It was wonderful to share that day with her. It reminded me of the many women who come to my constituency office for help, who are raising other people's children, having come to Canada, many from the Philippines, as live-in caregivers, the women whose children are growing up without their mother, the women who are working hard to earn money so that one day they can be reunited with their own children, the women who, like Rachel, dream of one day attending their own citizenship ceremony.
The members of the NDP have long been champions for the Filipino community and my colleague from Vancouver East has continued those efforts. One of the most important yet invisible contributions of Filipino Canadians is the many ways in which Filipino caregivers help raise our children and run our households.
Since 1992, some 75,000 Filipinos have become permanent residents of Canada through the federal government's caregiver program. The sales pitch was hard to resist. They would help raise our children for two years, and we would reunite them with theirs and give everyone a shot at permanent residency. Last year alone, some 23,000 Filipinos came to Canada under the program, but it has become a victim of its own success.
In 2015, the backlog of applications for permanent residency was 17,600 names long. Citizenship and Immigration Canada promised swift action and announced plans to expedite the approval process, but for many, the wait, which now averages over 50 months, and that is after two years of employment, is torture. At home, their kids are growing up without them, and with rock-bottom wages in the Philippines, going back is not a viable option. With the recent announcement by the federal government that the program will end in 2019, these women are understandably very concerned.
It is not a secret that women who are employed through the caregiver program are vulnerable and sometimes face harsh working conditions for very little pay. At the same time, they are isolated and far away from their homes and families. Most of them do not get to see their children for many years. They come and work under conditions that most of us would find trying, all for a chance at a better life. The least we can do is offer them better workplace protections and a pathway to permanent residency in a process that is clear, stable and not fraught with delays or uncertainty. 
Currently, the average application processing time for live-in caregivers is four and a half years. The NDP is calling on the government to take immediate action to end the backlog and processing delays that are keeping an estimated 40,000 live-in caregivers from reuniting with their families. 
We have always believed that if one is good enough to work here, one is good enough to stay. I hope that in addition to celebrating Filipino heritage month next year, the federal government will also be modernizing our immigration policies and processes and giving priority to reuniting families.
All around my community I see the good work brought about by members of the Filipino community, and their efforts are supported by residents of all different backgrounds.
I was proud to participate in the Flores de Mayo Fiesta celebration, which last year raised funds for the Filipino Heritage School in Saskatoon, which celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2017. Founded in 1996, the Filipino Heritage School is dedicated to preserving the Filipino language and culture, strengthening unity within the community and promoting intercultural understanding. The school's success is the collaborative effort of parents, families and teachers collectively working together to teach the Filipino language and culture.
The Filipino-Canadian Association of Saskatoon, or FILCAS, is a vibrant community organization serving as sort of the mother of all Filipino organizations in the city. It is the leading organizer of major Filipino Canadian activities, such as Philippine Independence Day on June 12, the sports tournament and the Filipino Canadian annual Christmas party.
Since the inception of the Saskatoon Folkfest over 36 years ago, FILCAS has hosted the Filipino pavilion, showcasing Filipino arts and culture and promoting Filipino heritage for all of us to enjoy.
I want to take this opportunity to acknowledge this year's Filipino Folkfest pavilion ambassadors, Hilbert and Grace Macadaeg, and youth pavilion ambassadors, Julenne Florida and Jayda Ho, for their warm welcome on my visit to the pavilion this year.
It has been an honour for me, as the member of Parliament for Saskatoon West, to attend the ANCOP, or Answering the Cry of the Poor, fundraising walk for the past two years. This year it celebrated its fifth walk in Saskatoon and its 15th in Canada. The money raised in Saskatoon walks has supported 35 sponsored children in going to school and has built 30 houses in the Saskatchewan Village in the Philippines.
My community and I are proud to honour the many contributions of Filipino Canadians in Saskatoon.
In closing, I must continue the accolades for the Filipino community in Saskatoon. I only wish I had more time, as the list is longer than my time allows.
I want to congratulate the University of Saskatchewan Filipino Student Association, which was honoured this year with the prestigious University of Saskatchewan Vera Pezer Award for Student Enhancement as the campus group of the year.
Last, but certainly not least, I want to send a special shout-out to the many Filipino Canadians working, and caring, as health care workers in my community, many of whom are proud members of the Service Employees International Union, SEIU-West. President Barb Cape and the members of SEIU-West are not only members of a great union but are also outstanding community partners, supporting many local Filipino events and cultural celebrations.
I look forward--
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Unfortunately, the time is up.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.
Robert-Falcon Ouellette: Madam Speaker, I would like to share my time with the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East. 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): By sharing his time, the hon. member knows that he will only have five minutes and he would need unanimous consent of the House. Does the member have the unanimous consent of the House to share his time?
Robert-Falcon Ouellette: Madam Speaker,
[Member spoke in Tagalog and provided the following translation:] 
[English]
Hello, I am the member for Winnipeg Centre. I am proud to represent my fellow Winnipeg citizens. They work hard. They make a difference. Filipinos are Winnipeg.
The first Filipinos immigrated to Canada in the 1930s. In the 1950s, 10 Filipinos were recorded in Manitoba. The first generation of Filipino Canadians were working as nurses, teachers and other professions in the health sector. By the 1970s, most Filipinos came to Winnipeg to work in health, clerical, sales and manufacturing fields. By the late 1970s, more Filipinos came to join relatives under the family unification programs the Canadian government had put forward.
During the 1980s, Canada saw another wave of Filipino contract workers, with many employed as live-in caregivers. 
The Filipino people have made an important contribution to the life of Manitoba and Canada. There are over 80,000 people of Filipino heritage in Winnipeg. These are our fellow citizens who make a difference each and every day to the people of Winnipeg and Winnipeg Centre. Around one out of 10 Filipino people in Canada call Winnipeg home.
The Filipino community has a centre in Winnipeg called the Philippine Canadian Centre of Manitoba. It provides services to the Filipino community and supports events, like Folkorama. The Filipino community is so important to Winnipeg because, for instance, Folkorama, a major cultural event, would not be able to go forward without the volunteerism and activism of the Filipino people. 
In Winnipeg, they are involved in the newspaper business, as journalists, reporting on local news but also international news. We have the Pilipino Express News Magazine, the Filipino Journal, the Ang Peryodiko and Artista. There is also a radio station, CKJS, which offers much Filipino information, broadcasting and servicing Filipino people in their language. 
I have had the opportunity, since being the member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre, to stand next to my brothers and sisters from the Filipino community and to hear about their dreams and wishes. The Winnipeg Filipino population is largely concentrated in the north end of Winnipeg North and also the west end. In Winnipeg Centre, the neighbourhood around Sargent Avenue and Arlington is 45% Filipino. In the neighbourhood around Sargent Avenue and Wall Street, it is 47% Filipino.
I have held a town hall in my riding on Filipino issues. I have also had the opportunity of travelling to the Philippines to meet with senators and congressmen and women from there, learning about what we can do in Canada to work better together to ensure trade and jobs and ensure that more people can have a good and safe life in Canada.
The Filipino community contributes to the economy. They are hard workers. They are involved in our churches. They make a difference. The hardest workers come from the Philippines. It is an honour and I am proud to serve my fellow citizens of Filipino heritage. 
  Salamat. 
Mr. Joe Peschisolido (Steveston—Richmond East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the member of Parliament for Scarborough Centre for all her hard work and the dedication she has put forth to get this motion and, hopefully, this bill to this House.
I an blessed to come from a place called Steveston—East Richmond. One of the thriving communities in Steveston—East Richmond is the Filipino community. It is more than a community. It is made up of individuals who love their families and who, as has been stated, believe in faith, community and church.
I feel blessed to have gone to the birthday party of a granddaughter of one of my good friends. I saw the love and commitment to one another, but also the love and commitment to Canada and to the community. I was just chatting with my dear friend, Tony Rodriguez, who has just become the grand knight of the Knights of Columbus over at St. Paul's Church. When I asked him, “Why are you doing this? You're so busy”, he said, “Because I want to give back to the community”.
Members of the Filipino community are fiercely proud of their Filipino heritage or perhaps are even more fiercely Canadian. Every June 12th for the past 20 years or so, I have been over at city hall where we have a flag-raising ceremony where we are celebrating in Richmond, as I am sure is done all across the country, independence day for the Philippines. Beside that, we have the Canadian flag. We stand and we sing proudly. I do not sing that well but I do proudly sing both national anthems. That is a testament of a community that not only contributes here in Canada, but also acts as a bridge by deepening our links to the Philippines.
I mentioned earlier on the Knights of Columbus. The whole idea of giving back to the community is integral to the Filipino community. I had dinner a couple weeks back at Ed and Mercy's café and restaurant, Little Ongpin. When I go there, it is not just having a meal. It is sharing and talking to all folks in Richmond. It is not just folks of Filipino background who are there, but everyone. That is a testament that the Filipino community is not just celebrating Filipino culture but also Canadian culture. 
I am sure we will officially recognize the month of June every year as a celebration for the Filipino culture and heritage. However, I would argue that it is also a recognition of Canadian culture because, as time goes on, 800,000 Canadians of Filipino background are moulding and shaping our culture. That is a wonderful thing. As our Prime Minister always says, diversity is a strength, not a weakness. It is an ongoing process where Canadians, wherever they come from, come to Canada and contribute not only to benefit their own families but also contribute to benefit Canada. They change, I would argue, for the better the nature and the culture of Canada. There is no better community to be an example of that than the Filipino community.
It has been my great honour to stand here today and to support our bill that will make June the month to celebrate the heritage of the Filipino community.
John Brassard: Madam Speaker, just last week I spoke in the House about Citizenship Week in Canada and how important that is, particularly to the Barrie—Innisfil community. We are truly blessed in Barrie—Innisfil with the richness and mix of cultures we have, whether it is the South Asian culture or the Filipino community. Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to stand today to speak to this motion by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre on the establishment of Filipino heritage month in June.
My first exposure to the Filipino community in Barrie and Innisfil was during the time I spent nine years on Barrie council. It was through the former MP whom I replaced, Mr. Patrick Brown, who really had a deep and strong connection with the Filipino community, that I got to meet many of the great people who represent Filipino Canadians in Barrie. I will be speaking about them and just what their organizations do for my community a little later on.
It is important to understand that 337,000 Filipinos live in Ontario. There are about 850,000 Filipino Canadians. They are hard-working, God-fearing people who have come to this country not only to contribute, but to contribute in a great way. For over 60 years, Filipino Canadians have lived and worked in many communities across Canada, including my community of Barrie—Innisfil, adding to our country's rich culture and heritage. As I said, this motion would recognize that with a Filipino heritage month in June.
Across the country, amazingly, there are about 1,000 Filipino associations taking up the causes of charity, awareness, and providing programs for children. Besides adding to our culture, Filipinos invest heavily in our country by running small businesses, as well as large companies, that employ thousands of Canadians across this country. Many Filipinos I know in my community work several jobs to contribute not only to our communities but also to better their own lives and those of their families and the people around them.
Filipino Canadians run over 30 newspapers and magazines across the country. One of my constituents, Beethoven Crasco, runs a social media online magazine called the Federal POST. It was my honour, shortly after I was elected to Parliament, to do an interview with Beethoven, to speak about my role as a member of Parliament. That was widely distributed through social media to the Filipino community.
Filipinos also host about 25 festivals year-round that bring awareness to their unique culture, and they are visited by well over 350,000 people across the country. Just one festival alone, the Taste of Manila in Toronto, attracts hundreds of thousands of people. 
In 2014, Canada was well represented at the Winter Olympics by Filipino Canadian Gilmore Junio, a long-track Olympic speed skater. We all watched many Canadian athletes in the Olympics with pride. We cheered them on. It did not matter which country they had come to Canada from, but the country they now represented, Canada. We could see the pride in many of those athletes' faces.
I get to go to several of the Filipino community events in my riding. The Christmas party at the Allandale Recreation Centre is attended by hundreds of members of the Filipino community. They come together at that party to celebrate their culture and Christmas with fantastic traditional wardrobes from the Philippines, and there are performances, but it is the food that I appreciate. I often tell people that one does not get a body like mine by not eating the food that Filipinos make. It is quite something.
They also contribute through Easter egg hunts. It is a way to get not just the Filipino community but many members of our community together at Sunnidale Park in North Barrie, where they have a massive Easter egg hunt. 
There are several Filipino organizations within Simcoe, such as the Bayanihan Club of Simcoe County, the Filipino-Canadian Association of Barrie and the Pilipinong Migrante sa Barrie, which is another organization that brings the Filipino community together. 
They are extremely proud of the contributions that have been made politically in this country as well. We can think back to the first member of Parliament and the first senator. Rey Pagtakhan was the first Filipino elected as a member of Parliament. Of course, there is Tobias Enverga who, unfortunately, quite suddenly passed away while on parliamentary business in Colombia. Shortly after Senator Enverga passed away, at the Christmas party I was speaking about earlier held in Barrie, there was so much love and respect, and so many people were going to miss Senator Enverga. He was everywhere, and not just within the Filipino community but those diverse communities in and around the greater Toronto area. The tears flowed heartily for Senator Enverga after his passing. A video tribute was paid to the senator, which was quite moving and touching.
My colleague, a member of the provincial Parliament, Andrea Khanjin, has a deep connection within the Filipino community, and a deep connection to Mely Titus from the Bayanihan Club. I mentioned Beethoven Cordero Crasco and his little boy J.C., who is the spitting image of his dad. They always have a smile on their faces when posting on social media, bringing great joy not just to the Filipino community but others as well.
I would be remiss if I did not mention Elmore Cudanin, the patriarch of the Filipino community. He is one of the first people I met within the Barrie Filipino community. Elmore, to this day, remains a good friend and a strong contributor. Of course, in the Filipino-Canadian Association of Barrie, there is Rose Malott. Again, there are so many who contribute so much in our community.
I mentioned earlier that the Canadian Filipino community has a deep and strong connection to the Philippines. Any time there is a natural disaster or significant event in the Philippines, we can always count on the Barrie, Simcoe County, Innisfil area Filipino community to step up and do what they need to do to help their countrymen back in the Philippines. 
I go to many events within my community, as most members of Parliament do. I am attending a Latin association Latin heritage festival on Saturday afternoon. On Saturday evening there is the Film Showing and Mini Concert for a Cause. It is a fundraising event for typhoon Mangkhut in the Philippines and the Ompong victims. There are three groups coming together, the Bayanihan Club, the Filipino-Canadian Association of Barrie and the Pilipinong Migrante sa Barrie, on Saturday, October 27 for a fundraiser. It is just a $5 donation or more. They are going to have a lot of things, such as a concert. It starts at 6 p.m. at the Burton Avenue United Church, 37 Burton Avenue in Barrie. I am going to be there along with the Mayor of Barrie, Jeff Lehman, and our member of provincial Parliament, Andrea Khanjin, as well as the member for Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. I would encourage anybody who is able to come out and help the Filipino community help their fellow countrymen get through this situation with the typhoon.
I am very proud of our Filipino community. They contribute so much to our community and I consider them deep and dear friends.
Mr. Frank Baylis (Pierrefonds—Dollard, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to split my seven minutes with my colleague, the member for Nepean.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Does the hon. member have the consent of all members in the House to split his time with the member for Nepean?
Frank Baylis: Madam Speaker, I am very proud to stand and speak to Motion No. 155 to make June Filipino heritage month.
Before I start, I would just like to give a great shout-out to the member for Scarborough Centre, who has done a fantastic job in doing all this work to bring this to fruition, to bring this motion to this point. I congratulate her. I would point out that she has done this under some duress as she has been battling some personal sickness, and she has come through with flying colours. I am very happy to see her here.
Filipinos have contributed to the social, cultural and economic fabric of Canada in phenomenal ways. I am so proud of all my friends and all the communities that I see coming together in the Filipino diaspora here in Canada. If we look at what they have done socially, culturally and economically, every aspect of Canadian culture has been contributed to.
I personally have the privilege of having three excellent associations in my riding. My riding encompasses Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Pierrefonds, Roxboro and Île Bizard. These are great societies. I will start with FCAWI, Filipino-Canadian Association of West Island, run by Mr. Ador Bolusan. They do all kinds of work in sports, social and cultural activities. I have gone and played basketball with them. They are much better than me, but I play with them anyway.
Then we have SWIS, Seniors of the West Island and Suburbs, under the leadership of Roger Ajero, who has just stepped down, and my friend Connie Fabro has taken over as president. I am sure she will do a great job. They have seniors' bingo, line dancing and excursions. I try to keep up, but I am not that good.
Finally, we have PAAWIS, Philippines Athletic Association of West Island and Suburbs. Their president, Jojo Tanoja, works with youth to make sure they all get to play basketball.
On a personal level, I have been involved with the Filipino community for the last 20 years, because when I first started playing tennis, they brought me into their group and let me play with them when I was no good, and I learned. I have my friends, Greg De Guzman, Luis Sarasola and particularly Benny Bote, who made it a point to always beat me at tennis. I have gotten better.
Finally, while I stand here, I would also like to point out that sitting beside me is my good friend and colleague from Mount Royal. His riding is really the heart of the Filipino community in Montreal. The umbrella group there is FAMAS and there are so many others. I cannot begin to name them all. He has asked me to name them all, but unfortunately I cannot do it. There are just too many of them.
There are sports associations, regional associations, cultural associations, and they all contribute so well to the community of Montreal. I can tell the community that there has been no greater advocate for them in the House of Commons than my good friend and colleague from the riding of Mount Royal.
Together, I would like to say to all the Filipino community of Canada, Mabuhay.
Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Motion No. 155, moved by my good friend, the member for Scarborough Centre. This motion seeks to recognize, celebrate and raise awareness of the Filipino community in Canada and designate June as Filipino heritage month. My riding of Nepean and the national capital region are home to the sixth-largest Filipino community in Canada, with nearly 10,000 Filipinos residing here.
There are a large number of organizations in Canada working hard to keep the Filipino culture alive. One is the Canadian Filipino Net, a group of Canadian Filipinos who are passionate about raising the profile of Filipinos in Canada by providing news and views of Canadian Filipino communities across the country. According to it, Tinig Pinoy Radio is an on-line radio station that reaches out to millions of Filipinos across the world with its unique blend of programming. Tinig Pinoy, which in English means Filipino voice, delivers news from the Philippines, updates from various Filipino communities in different countries, and interviews and opinions on various issues. Tinig Pinoy is hosted by founder and executive, Dan De Castro, with Regina Sosing as its fantastic program director, and Gerry Orcia as technical producer.
We have a dynamic Filipino community in Ottawa today. We have the Philippines Independence Committee of the Ottawa Valley, led by its very active president, Nora Arriola. We have very active Filipino community leaders like Regina Genducao of Hiligaynon Association; Ms. Lilly Lay of the Filipiniana Association of Ottawa Valley; Ms. Mely Gomz of the Ottawa Valley Fil-Can Seniors Association; Ms. Maura David of the Assumption Parish Organization; Dr. Ruby Formoso of Philippine Heritage Foundation Canada; Mr. Rafael Mamaril of Philippine Centre Canada; and Mr. Lawrence Laureta of the Ilocano Nagrud Society.
We also have very active community leaders like Sonia Del Rosario, who was awarded Nepean’s Canada 150th Anniversary Medal for her contribution to the community.
According to the writer Jujanester, Filipinos have great characteristics and qualities that every one of us should be proud of: first, hospitality, which is a very different kind of values system that has existed in their community for thousands of years; second, respect, which is often observed not just by younger people, but by Filipino people of all ages; third, strong family ties and religion; fourth, generosity and helpfulness; fifth, a strong work ethic; and sixth, being loving and caring.
I am proud to support designating June as Filipino heritage month.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has a right of reply for five minutes.
Mrs. Salma Zahid (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all my colleagues who contributed to this important debate, sharing their support for designating June as Filipino heritage month and their own reflections on the contributions of the Filipino community to Canada. The diversity of stories and examples, from coast to coast to coast, strongly demonstrate the impact this community has had on our country.
The member for Calgary Forest Lawn, an honorary Filipino, he says, told us about the strength of the Filipino community in Calgary and the great events organized by the Diamond Seniors Club.
My friend from Vancouver East spoke about the sacrifices made by Filipino caregivers and the need to do more to end their separation from their own families. It is a statement I fully support.
The Filipino Centre Toronto recently moved to Scarborough North. My colleague from that riding spoke about the valuable service it provided to the community.
The member for Winnipeg North and the member for Kildonan—St. Paul spoke about the strong roots the Filipino community had built in Winnipeg, especially the garment workers, many of them women, who laid a strong foundation for the generations that would follow.
The member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville recognized the Markham Federation of Filipino Canadians, which works to promote the appreciation and sharing of the Filipino cultural heritage with other cultures and helps to bring all cultures together.
Today, the member of Parliament for Scarborough—Rouge Park talked about the contributions of the Filipino Canadians on the cultural landscape of our country.
Also, the member for Saskatoon West talked about how Rose and her husband built the Global Pinoy Food Store to serve the community in Saskatoon. She also talked about the contributions health care workers were making to Saskatoon.
The member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre talked about the important role the Filipino Canadian Centre of Manitoba was playing it his city.
The member of Parliament for Steveston—Richmond East talked about how Canadians of Filipino origin were adding to the diversity of Canada and to our rich culture and heritage.
The Filipino community in Canada is excited about this motion. It is long overdue. Many Filipino Canadians will be travelling to Ottawa next week to witness this vote in person. Many more will be watching this exciting moment on television. I am sure the late Senator Tobias Enverga, the first Filipino Canadian senator, will be watching proudly as well.
I look forward to standing in this place with all members next week to say salamat to Canadians of Filipino origin, as we pass this motion and confer this recognition on a community that has done so much for Canada.
Next June, as we mark the 70th anniversary of diplomatic relations between Canada and the Philippines, I look forward to celebrating the first official national Filipino heritage month with all members, as well as Filipino Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
 Mabuhay Canada. Mabuhay Philippines.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Adjournment Proceedings
Indigenous AffairsSheri Benson: Madam Speaker, in June, when I asked the government why there is still no indigenous housing strategy, the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services replied that budget 2018 had put aside some monies for indigenous housing and that the housing gap they experience is unacceptable. It is almost six months later, a year since the national housing strategy was tabled and three years since the government was elected, and we still have no indigenous housing strategy. How unacceptable is that?
I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will agree with me that the monies announced so far in budget 2018 are really just a drop in the bucket and that the need for culturally appropriate housing for indigenous people is a huge ocean. However, the government has seen fit to delay an indigenous housing strategy. Yes, the Liberals say it is coming, but we must see something concrete, otherwise their commitments are just words. I know they did not forget about it, but I wonder if it is important enough.
The appalling conditions on reserves are unacceptable. There is mould, overcrowding, and no safe drinking water, and I could go on. Some 87% of indigenous people in Canada live off reserve and they also face 10 times the risk of housing insecurity and homelessness as non-indigenous Canadians do. This is unacceptable.
In my community of Saskatoon West, I met someone who lives in an unheated garage because there is nothing else he can afford. How is this acceptable in a country as rich as ours? It is unacceptable that a full year after announcing a national housing strategy, the government has yet to announce an indigenous housing strategy. It is unacceptable and offensive that the government would overlook the pressing and dire housing conditions that indigenous people face.
It is beyond insulting that the best the Liberals can do is to create a housing design competition. It is no wonder that it has been called the “Hunger Games of on-reserve housing” by advocate Arnell Tailfeathers. The issue of housing and poverty is not to be relegated to something as demeaning as a contest in order to win prizes. However well intentioned it may be, it absolutely misses the mark of dealing with the housing issues within first nations that are at a crisis point.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay has said: “This is a publicity stunt by a government that promised better. They have chronically underfunded housing needs on reserve. So many innovative projects have died on the desks of an indifferent ministry. They are shifting blame.”
Year after year, government after government have pledged to do more, but still the conditions on reserve persist. The knowledge is there, the money is there, yet no government has had the political will to act and make a difference. So much for real change. It is more of the same from the current government. Other than pretty words, the government has all but ignored indigenous housing. That is so much more more disappointing than the previous government's blatant disregard.
I would ask the parliamentary secretary if he could explain why buying a pipeline is more important than fixing the housing crisis in Canada, particularly for indigenous peoples.
Mr. Dan Vandal (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I want to acknowledge that we are on traditional territory of the Algonquin peoples.
Our government is committed to closing the unacceptable housing gap for indigenous peoples. We made a significant investment of $554.3 million early on in budget 2016 to address urgent housing needs on reserve. As a result of these investments, 14,107 total housing units have been or are being built, renovated, retrofitted or lots serviced as of June 30, 2018.
Indigenous Services Canada, in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, will continue to work with first nations to reform on-reserve housing and ensure reliable, sustainable infrastructure for indigenous peoples.
Indigenous leaders have been clear. They do not want a one-size-fits-all approach for improving indigenous housing. The government agrees. This is why, in addition to the national housing strategy funds through investments made in budgets 2017 and 2018, the government has dedicated funding to support the successful implementation of each of the distinctions-based housing strategies, including $600 million over three years to support first nation housing on reserve as part of a 10-year housing strategy that is being developed with first nations; $400 million over 10 years to support an Inuit-led housing plan in Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and Inuvialuit Settlement Region. This is in addition to the $240 million over 10 years announced in budget 2017 to support housing in Nunavut.
A draft Inuit Nunangat housing strategy has been co-developed by Inuit partners, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Employment and Social Development Canada. It is expected that the strategy will be finalized over the coming months. In addition, there are $500 million over 10 years for the delivery and control of affordable and social housing by the Métis Nation, the first of its kind in Canada. 
On July 19, the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, the president of the Métis National Council, Clément Chartier, and the presidents of the MNC governing members signed the Métis Nation housing sub-accord. The Métis Nation housing sub-accord reflects a shared commitment to narrow the core housing gap and further indigenous self-determination in this important area of social policy.
We will continue working with partners to advance indigenous-led approaches to close the housing gap for indigenous peoples. I look forward to working with the member opposite on this critical issue and thank her for her strong advocacy.
Sheri Benson: Madam Speaker, I am hopeful, which perhaps it is not a good thing to be sometimes. I am disappointed, but I am hopeful.
The parliamentary secretary mentioned that the indigenous housing strategy would be brought forward. However, what we often hear from the government is a list of actions and funding in the hopes that somehow people will be dazzled by that and think it is enough. It is not enough.
It is not enough to build better housing needed on reserves and it is not enough to bring clean drinking water to the schools and families forced to live in third-world conditions. It is a big problem that needs big, bold action. I want the government to step up sooner rather than later; stop talking about the issue and actually stepping up and acting.
Mr. Dan Vandal: Madam Speaker, we are deeply committed to renewing the nation-to-nation, Inuit-Crown and government-to-government relationship with indigenous peoples. We believe all Canadians should have access to safe, adequate and affordable housing. I know my hon. colleague is a strong advocate on this as well.
Indigenous leaders have told us that when it comes to housing in first nations, Inuit and Métis Nation communities, the best approach is one that respects the distinct needs of each group. We will continue to work with our first nation, Métis and Inuit partners to develop and implement distinctions-based housing strategies that are tailored to their needs. 
It is never wrong to have hope and I offer that advice for the hon. member.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Madam Speaker, what is the price of a political vendetta? If one is the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and is trying to shut down the survivors of St. Anne's residential school, the cost is $2.3 million and counting. That is what the current government has been willing to spend to fight survivors of some of the most horrific child sexual abuse, torture and child rape ever perpetrated in Canada. 
What issue is the government trying to suppress? It was the decision by the Justice Department of Canada to take 10,000 pages of evidence, the names of 180 perpetrators, that it was legally obligated to turn over to the hearings of the St. Anne survivors, and instead of presenting that evidence, present what is a lie, in a legal term, a false evidence narrative. It was the department's obligation to present what documents there were to say that there was no history of sexual and physical crimes at St. Anne's. However, there were so many. Bishop Jules Leguerriere is named in the list. There is also Bishop Henri Belleau and Father Langlois. Father Arthur Lavoie has a persons of interest report of over 2,000 pages. That was suppressed.
What was the effect of that? The cases were thrown out. I would never have stood in the House and spoken on a case before hearings, except this was brought to me in 2013, almost 10 years into the process. Edmund Metatawabin came to me and said his people, who have suffered so much, were having their cases thrown out. They were being told they were not believable. He said that justice department lawyers were lying in the hearings, because the department has these documents. I thought at the time, as a member of Parliament, that if I wrote to ask how it were possible in a legal process for them to suppress evidence, this would be handled. 
They were forced to turn over documents, but then the question is, what about justice in the cases? Therefore, I wrote to the oversight committee of the independent assessment process asking what happens when the government fails in its duty. No one dealt with it. I wrote to the adjudicators to ask what happens when people are denied their most basic legal rights. No one dealt with that.
What happened was that two cases came forward. This is where the $2.3 million has been spent. One case, H-15019, was by a victim of horrific child rape. Government lawyers said he was not believable, that they could not even prove that the perpetrator had been in the institution at the time, despite the fact they had a massive file on that person. That predator had been at that school for 40 years. The justice department knew it, and it got the case thrown out. When this person used his basic legal rights to go back to reopen that case, the government said it could not be done.
I want to read something. Phil Fontaine rose on this issue at the AFN. He said Canada had a legal obligation, because procedural fairness is a fundamental principle implied in the Indian residential school settlement agreement and the IAP. These were designed to be fair, reasonable and in the best interests of the claimant. In his affidavit he said the he always expected that the IAP would “respect First Nation and Inuit individuals' rights...with a process at least as fair as any other hearing before a court or similar process.” 
He said in his affidavit that he would not have signed the agreement if he had known the basic principle of procedural fairness would not be respected. The government lawyers ridiculed Fontaine's position, saying that the court should not give any evidentiary weight to his affidavit—the affidavit of the person who had signed the Indian residential school settlement agreement—and said that his paragraphs were largely speculative and done in hindsight and that it was of no assistance to receive theoretical views of subjective intent. They were not of subjective intent— 
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): Unfortunately, the time is up. The hon. member will have another minute. 
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown and Indigenous Relations. 
Mr. Marc Miller (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, Lib.): Madam Speaker, we are committed to justice for all Indian residential school survivors. As the member well knows, our government has provided all the documents to the courts, those that have been asked for, when it comes to St. Anne's residential school. We are also working with those claims that were affected by the previous government's actions, to settle those in a fair and equitable way.
It is important to note that more than 95% of all claimants from St. Anne's have received compensation much higher than the national average for residential school claims. As the supervising court has made clear, “the evidence shows that Canada has kept its promise and continues to keep its promise.”
While most claims have been resolved, those few remaining do include the most difficult and challenging. Unfortunately, that has led to far too many court challenges.
As the administrator of the IRSSA, Canada has a duty to defend the integrity of the process and to ensure fairness for all participants. These cases have brought further clarity to the process, ensuring that all survivors are treated equitably and in the spirit of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that was approved more than 12 years ago.
The legal fees referenced by the hon. member are an accounting of existing internal legal resources, which were dedicated to ensuring that claimants received the compensation they deserved and the integrity of the independent process. No outside fees have been incurred in any of the cases brought against Canada.
It is also important to note that Canada has never, and our government will never, seek legal costs against any individual claimant.
In exceptional circumstances, costs can be sought against lawyers who do not appear to be acting responsibly. Sadly, in one of the cases the member refers to, the court has stated that counsel's “repeated and deliberate attack on the integrity of this Court threatens to interfere with the administration of justice”. Baselessly attacking the credibility of the courts and of the independent assessment process that has handled more than 38,000 cases does a great disservice to survivors. 
Counsel is responsible for the symbolic costs that have been awarded, and they will be donated to a fund that supports former students.
Our government has reached negotiated settlements to undo the harm caused by the previous government's unethical legal arguments, such as the so-called administrative split. 
Our government has reached negotiated settlements to address claims of student-on-student abuse, which faced too high a legal bar to be fairly compensated.
We have repeatedly shown the willingness and desire to work closely with survivors to help them on their healing journey and to undo the terrible legacy Indian residential schools have left in Canada.
As the courts have said, the evidence is clear that our government has kept and is keeping its promise to residential school survivors.
Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, that is ridiculous. The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations spent $2.3 million fighting survivors of child rape. Why? It was because her officials went in, suppressed evidence and lied in those hearings.
When Phil Fontaine brought forward his affidavit on the fundamental legal principle of procedural fairness, he said that they never would have signed this Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement if the rights to procedural fairness that were given to survivors who fought in court were also given under the IAP. We have the minister's officials going all the way to the superior court to shut down two key cases. They are not difficult cases. They are the cases that will show how far the current government has gone to suppress evidence. Yes, some St. Anne survivors have received compensation, but we have no accurate idea of how much compensation has been denied because of the refusal of the government to turn over evidence.
Therefore, I ask my colleague this. What kind of government allows a kangaroo court where people are denied procedural fairness? This is the question. Carolyn Bennett has a vendetta against the—
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): I am sorry, the hon. member is out of time. The hon. member does know that he is not to mention an MP or minister by name in the House of Commons.
Mr. Marc Miller: Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge the passion with which the member opposite conveys his point. However, I disagree strongly with some of the conclusions he is drawing.
Charlie Angus: What? Survivors of child rape?
Mr. Marc Miller: Madam Speaker, I gave the member the opportunity, quite quietly, to advance his point, however passionately, without criticizing. I would ask that he accord the same respect to me, as he is leaving the House.
As we have said, with respect to Indian residential school court cases, Canada has not, and will not, seek costs against survivors. In exceptional circumstances, costs can be awarded by the courts against counsel whose conduct they find questionable and that undermines the integrity of the court system.
We have repeatedly shown the willingness and desire to work closely with survivors to help them on their healing journey and undo the terrible legacy Indian residential schools have left in Canada.
As the member opposite well knows, 95% of the claims in respect of St. Anne's residential school have now been resolved.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes): The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.)